The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding: (a) the victim returned the original loan certificate to the victim; (b) on January 20, 2015, the victim sent a text message demanding modification of the contract to the defendant; (c) there is no need to prepare the contract in the same amount; (d) there is an additional construction cost as a result of appraisal and judgment in civil procedure; and (e) modification of other matters, such as the date of completion, without simply increasing the construction cost; (vi) the Corporation did not claim damages on the ground that the contract was completed on June 6, 2015 and the victim did not complete the initial contract; and (vii) the details of issuing the tax invoice were consistent with the price of the contract in this case and the victim processed expenses without objection; and (8) the victim did not request the return of the original contract in this case to the defendant even if no further purpose was available; and (b) the Defendant and the victim did not request the return of the original contract in this case to the victim.

It is difficult to see it.

B. The Supreme Court has established the legal doctrine that the civil litigation system should be strictly recognized in the establishment of the crime of fraud in a lawsuit, and also shows the legal doctrine on the criminal probative value that the criminal defendant cannot be found guilty unless there is any proof of guilt to the extent that it excludes a reasonable doubt based on the presumption of innocence in the criminal litigation law.

Considering that there are many circumstances to suspect the Defendant’s conviction, including the fact that the Defendant was determined as having a claim for construction cost of KRW 1.2 billion in civil procedure, the lower court’s determination is unlawful by misapprehending the above legal doctrine.

(c)

The sentencing is unfair for the defendant.