The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court, while not adopting L’s statement protocol as evidence, used it as evidence to recognize the Defendant’s deception.

In this case, the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence (i.e., allegation). The defendant had sufficient means to pay the construction cost to the victim at the time of the instant case, and only did not pay the accurate amount of construction cost in dispute with the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred in recognizing a crime of fraud by creating confusion between the Defendant’s financial ability and the Defendant’s company’s financial ability (Claim B). The Defendant paid the instant construction cost to the victim on the condition that E would attract investments, or promised to pay the construction cost to the victim in belief that E would attract investments (misunderstanding of motive), and the victim was well aware of these circumstances.

Therefore, if the defendant concludes the instant construction contract with the victim and has the victim execute the construction work, it can be the cause of civil liability, but it cannot be the deception of fraud.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding the facts (Third argument). The prosecutor only specified the amount of damage as KRW 100 million based on the written estimate of the victim, but failed to prove the amount of damage.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in finding the Defendant guilty of property damage of “amountless” (No.4). Since the victim was able to exercise the right of retention, it is the commencement of the removal work without receiving the down payment before preparing the contract for construction work with the Defendant.

As such, the recovery of construction cost by the injured party by exercising the right of retention was received by a legitimate method, and thus, the third party was compensated for damages as judged by the court below.