The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant could have obtained the benefit of the amount equivalent to the substitute wage by deceiving the victim, in full view of the following facts: (a) the amount of wages of KRW 6,250,000 will be paid by subrogation at the time when the defendant asked the victim to pay by subrogation; and (b) the amount of partial repayment of wages would have been incurred as a result of the progress of the construction; and (c) the circumstances after the fraudulent act had already been committed, the defendant could have obtained the benefit of the amount equivalent to the substitute payment. However,

2. The circumstances duly explained by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① the time when the Defendant requested the victim to pay wages was three months prior to the discontinuance of the construction work, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant was able to predict whether the damage was caused by the Defendant’s failure to perform the construction work at that time solely on the ground that the Defendant was a constructor; ② the Defendant’s demand for paying wages on behalf of the victim was due to the fact that there was no sufficient means to pay the victim immediately, and the victim also agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the substitute wages upon receiving the payment of the construction cost from the original office. In so doing, the victim also knew that the Defendant was aware that the source of the funds for which the Defendant would pay the amount of wages was paid from the original office in the future; ③ The settlement agreement was made with the contents reduced by at least KRW 100,000,000,000 to the original scheduled construction cost (public trial record), and whether the construction work was discontinued at that time.