The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In light of the legal principles as to the fraud against the victim D, inasmuch as the Defendant had the intent or ability to complete the construction work, in full view of the fact that, at the time of borrowing the money from the victim D, the progress ratio of the construction work contracted by the victim D was almost 81%, and the Defendant provided the victim D with the right to claim the construction cost as security, the intention or capacity to complete the construction work is not recognized.

In addition, with respect to embezzlement, the Defendant intended to pay the cost of the facility after completion of urban gas construction, but did not pay the cost of the facility as the construction was suspended against the Defendant’s will, and the Defendant did not arbitrarily use the said money.

With respect to the fraud against the victim I, the payment for construction work that the defendant received from the victim I is KRW 264,00,000, which is the defendant's 211,775,000 among them (49.25% of the contracted construction work) and the reason for the suspension of the construction work is that there was a difference between the victim I and the victim I in relation to the change of design and the payment of the construction work, and thus, the intention of the defraudation cannot be acknowledged.

With respect to the fraud of the victim K, since the victim K had been aware of the situation in which the defendant was in a financial crisis and continued to receive a subcontract, the defendant deceiving the victim K.

shall not be deemed to exist.

With respect to the fraud against the victim P, the subcontracting relationship between the defendant and the victim P has been repeated over several times for a long time, the subcontract price to be paid by the defendant to the victim P is KRW 296,439,140, and the defendant paid KRW 191,180,000 among them, and the defendant paid the contract price to the victim P continuously as the funds accrue.