All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged the public prosecutor’s mistake of the facts did not have the intent and ability to pay the cost of construction to the victim E even if the victim is paid the cost of construction due to a large amount of other debt already incurred at the time of subcontracting the F internal construction to the victim E.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the fraud of F’s interior subcontracting cost of KRW 9.5 million among the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The lower court’s judgment’s argument of unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 20, 2012, the summary of the charge charged by the lower court: (a) around July 20, 2012, the Defendant given a subcontract for construction work on the second floor of the building and the 17th floor inside the building that the Defendant was awarded a contract from AR (ju) to the victim for construction work cost of KRW 9.5 million.

However, the Defendant had not paid the construction cost to the subcontractor since November 201, when the construction work of several sites was already being implemented, and thus, failed to pay the construction cost to the subcontractor properly, and the Defendant paid the construction cost received by the Defendant at another site and paid the construction cost to another site, etc. In addition, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the construction cost normally even if the Defendant had the victim use it for the payment of the construction cost in another site.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim and allowing the victim to complete the above construction work; and (b) by failing to pay the construction cost, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 9.5 million.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in the judgment records and pleadings, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the criminal intent of deception and fraud of the defendant regarding the crime stated in the above facts charged, and evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.