The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. That the Defendant, as the misunderstanding of the fact, did not have the intention or ability to pay the construction cost as of the time of concluding the subcontract contract.

It is difficult to see it, and there was no intention to commit fraud against the accused.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is the E’s representative director in Naju City D.

On July 1, 2015, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the construction cost without drawing, upon completion of landscaping construction work within the period of subcontracting the said construction work, for KRW 280,00,000,000, when he received an order for landscaping construction work from the International Repair Work ordered by the Hacheon City.”

However, at the time, the Defendant had the obligation to pay approximately KRW 90 million to 12 persons, including J, etc., as well as approximately KRW 100 million in arrears. From June 25, 2015, the attachment and provisional attachment commenced by creditors from around June 25, 2015, and there was a seizure and provisional attachment of approximately KRW 680 million in advance around the time of the subcontract agreement. As such, there was a high possibility that the construction price would not be paid in full due to the above attachment, etc. even if the victim completes the landscaping work within the period, the Defendant was not able to settle this early and pay the full amount of the construction price to the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, caused the victim to perform landscaping work from July 2, 2015 to November 19, 2015, and prevented the victim from paying the remainder of construction cost of KRW 110 million, excluding labor cost of KRW 170 million, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. As to the lower judgment’s determination, the lower court, at the time of July 1, 2015, operated by the Defendant.

E’s obligations.