The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, it is recognized that the Defendant, even if the Defendant received the construction payment from the victim in advance, did not have the intent or ability to complete the construction at once, and, even if he borrowed money from the victim, could not have the intent or ability to repay it, by deceiving the victim and deceiving him of the advance payment of the construction payment of KRW 126 million and KRW 55 million.

However, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person engaged in construction business under the trade name of “C”.

(1) On May 2, 2012, the Defendant concluded a false subcontract agreement with the victim on the same place on July 2, 2012, stating that “The Defendant would purchase a housing site in Young-gu, Young-gu, Incheon, and sell a multi-household house after constructing a multi-household house. It would result in credit construction if the Defendant paid a certain amount of money that can start construction work. In the meantime, it would result in the reduction of construction period due to a large number of experience in managing multi-household houses, and would be able to collect construction cost further.” On the same date, the Defendant would give the victim KRW 450 million to the new construction of a multi-household house on the F site in Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, which was purchased at this time. First of all, on August 30, 2012, the Defendant paid the down payment to the Plaintiff and completed the construction work by up to 126 million won after completion of construction work.

However, in fact, the defendant had no special property, and had already been operating the construction site in the six construction site, and had failed to raise funds for the construction expenses required at each site, as well as he has actually received from the victim.