The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts, the construction work under a human-based contract with the owner (hereinafter “instant construction work”) was carried out properly. If the Defendant received from the owner any intermediate payment and any balance, there was no problem in paying the price for the goods to the victim. The Defendant did not have any personal use of KRW 91 million which the owner received from the owner of the instant construction work, and only was used as other construction proposals or office expenses other than the instant construction work.

Ultimately, although the construction of this case was suspended, it was impossible to pay the price for the goods to the victim, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this case was erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts is reasonable to deem that the defendant's assertion that at the time of the supply contract between the defendant and the victim had the intent and ability to pay the goods to the defendant, the court below, based on the evidence as indicated in its reasoning, had been engaged in other construction works than the instant construction works contracted by the owner at the time of concluding the supply contract with the victim, i.e., the defendant spent 62 million won out of the construction costs other than the instant construction works, and the defendant is also deemed to have been a number of debtors other than the victim, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as indicated in its reasoning, and considering that the defendant used 91 million won out of the construction costs received from the owner as labor costs other than the instant construction works, and the defendant is also deemed to have been a number of debtors other than the victim. At the time,