The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Legal doctrine misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and his accomplices acquired through the instant fraud are merely an unregistered pecuniary profit in the amount of “the status of the contracting party which entered into the contract with the ordering party” and cannot be viewed as the construction cost to be acquired when the construction is completed under the said contract.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by deeming the construction price itself as the property or property profit acquired by the crime of fraud in this case. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the amount of fraud, thereby affecting

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant’s criminal proceeds derived from the instant crime reaches KRW 846,202,179 through 1,269,303,268, even if based on the Defendant’s statement made by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Nevertheless, the lower court failed to order the collection on the ground that there was no material to specify the amount and place of use of the money actually acquired by the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the collection of additional charges, or by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”).

The summary of the charge of violation (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the charge in this part") is as follows: the defendant and his accomplice (hereinafter referred to as "defendant, etc.") are as follows: the financial commissioner's malicious program for PC and the bidder's malicious program for PC as indicated in the judgment of the court below are used in an unlawful manner.