The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is run by the Defendant

As G already closed down, even if the value-added tax is collected from the injured party, it was paid by the injured party the construction cost including the amount equivalent to the value-added tax, even though the injured party did not have the intent or ability to pay it to the head of the competent tax office. Accordingly, in paying the value-added tax, the injured party suffered a loss equivalent to the purchase tax due to the failure to obtain a deduction of the purchase tax amount, thereby recognizing

Nevertheless, the court below declared innocence on the ground that the crime of fraud is not constituted. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who subcontracted part of the construction work of “F excreta and garbage disposal facilities” in Pyeongtaek-si D and E from the victim C Co., Ltd. operated by B around August 6, 2012 and performed construction work.

On September 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) performed construction work at the construction site above (which appears to be a clerical error in the indictment, 2013); and (b) requested the damaged company to pay KRW 10 million for the construction cost; (c) if the victimized company pays the Defendant in addition to the value-added tax in the construction cost, the Defendant would pay the value-added tax; and (d) as if the victimized company could receive refund or deduction of the value-added tax using the tax invoice in the name of “G” issued by the Defendant, the Defendant claimed KRW 110,000,000,000, added the value-added tax to the construction cost

However, in fact, even if the amount equivalent to the value added tax is paid by the victimized company, it was planned to use it for other purposes without paying the value added tax, and the above G was already closed and the damaged company was not able to receive the value added tax refunded or deducted by the tax invoice issued in its name.

The Defendant is identical to this.