[Defendant A] The guilty part of the lower judgment against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, the existence, extinguishment, and scope of the enforcement claim on the part of the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and each fraud against Insan City, Ansan City, and Ansan City" under Paragraph (2) of the same Article of the judgment of the court below does not affect the validity of the assignment order

However, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant A deceiving the court, and there is no room to deem that Defendant F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) suffered damage due to the fact that Defendant F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) actually has a claim against the female-gun, Osan-si, and Ansan-si. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that Defendant F incurred damage.

Even if a lawsuit fraud crime is established, the amount obtained by fraud of this case is merely the amount of the actual construction cost to F with the victim female-gun, Osan-si, Ansan-si, and Ansan-si.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of fraud as to the entire claim amount of each of the claims for the seizure and assignment order or collection order of each of the claims in this case is erroneous and erroneous.

The facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, which stated in the lower judgment, the Defendant A, who received the construction cost from the Eju-gun and intended to pay the subcontract price to the victim T. However, on June 19, 2012, the Defendant A was merely unable to pay the money to the victim T. In short, he did not deceiving the victim T. without the intention or ability to pay the money from the beginning, by deceiving the victim T. without the intention or ability to pay the money.

In addition, the victim T was aware of the fact that the defendant's financial status is not good from the time when the victim provided equipment and labor to the defendant A around November 2011.