The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal merely prevents the payment of the construction cost to the victim E because it was not paid the additional construction cost by the owner F, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (1) victim E was awarded a contract for remote areas, floors, and carpets (hereinafter “instant construction project”) among the remodeling projects in Seoul, Seoul, with the Defendant, but the Defendant asserts that the contractor of the instant construction project is already discontinued corporation G (hereinafter “instant company”) and himself is merely an employee of the instant company, and the Defendant is refusing to pay KRW 18,758,000 due to the instant construction project; (2) The Defendant’s investigation conducted by the police, and the Defendant was conducted by the police, and the unpaid construction cost for the victim was 18,758,000 as an employee of the instant company, but the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was not obligated to pay the instant construction cost due to the fact that the instant construction contract was concluded between the victim and the victim’s agent, and (3) the contractor’s contact number was stated in the column of the instant construction contract, but the Defendant’s personal mobile phone account was mixed with the Defendant’s bank account.

(2) The company of this case.