The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds (psyched deliberation, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Defendant, due to extreme financial difficulties, committed deception and defraudation due to circumstances, such as using more than KRW 600 million out of the total sum of KRW 1.778 billion, including the down payment and the down payment received from the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”), regardless of the instant construction project, etc. at the time of the initial contract.

In addition, the defendant would use the intermediate payment as the "construction cost to be paid in the down payment, etc." under the circumstances where it is inevitable to use it as the purchase price of materials to proceed in the future.

Since deceiving the damaged company to receive the intermediate payment, there was deception and deception of the use at the time of the request for the advance payment of the intermediate sexual money.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles and hearing findings.

2. In the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor, ex officio, divided the facts charged in the existing fraud into two frauds, and changed the facts charged in the following crimes, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to add Articles 37 and 38 of the Criminal Act to the provisions of the applicable law. Since the subject of the judgment is changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's failure to conduct a trial, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles still are subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment based on the following facts: (a) whether a crime of fraud exists relating to down payment and down payment; (b) whether the Defendant was the representative director.

E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) has fully failed to perform its contractual obligations under the first and second contracts, and has used part of the construction cost to reimburse E’s costs and liabilities for other construction works. However, the instant construction is actually conducted and completed (the Defendant from December 2, 2012 to January 2014).