The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s crime committed by the lower court found guilty with respect to the statute of limitations has terminated around June 21, 2007 (Article 1(1) as indicated in the lower judgment) and around July 20, 207 (Article 2(2) as indicated in the lower judgment). However, the prosecutor must file a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Article 326 subparag. 3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter “former Criminal Procedure Act”) since the seven years have passed since the statute of limitations under Article 249(1)3 of the former Criminal Procedure Act was passed on October 31, 2016. As such, this part of the facts charged ought to be acquitted.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations was suspended until March 12, 201, on the ground that “the Defendant was in China for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment,” but the Defendant was staying in China from Korea on March 11, 2005 until he returned to China. In particular, even after the instant case, the Defendant did not have stayed in China for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment. At least by the end of March 2009, the Defendant did not have stayed in China for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.

As such, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the statute of limitations, which held that the defendant suspended the statute of limitations for a period of time during which the defendant was in China.

2) There was no choice but to believe H, which was introduced as the director-general of E through J by the relevant constructor of the crime of defraudation, and the Defendant concluded a contract with H on some of the instant waterworks works, and the victim D was also in the process of concluding the contract.

In addition, the Defendant received KRW 360 million for the commencement of the construction work, and additionally borrowed KRW 240 million for the purpose of securing H’s expense, and the Defendant paid KRW 130 million for the construction work around August 2007, which did not proceed differently from the expectation, and thereafter the other company and the other company.