The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Taking into account the following factors: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the Defendant led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was actively deceiving the victim; (c) the Defendant did not actively deceiving the victim; and (d) the amount of the instant fraud was used as construction cost, personnel expenses, etc.; and (e) the Defendant’s health status was not good, the punishment imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. However, determination is made: ① Whether the Defendant actually possessed the technology related to the heating and cooling system at the time of committing the instant crime, or whether the Defendant appears to have used most of the money that the Defendant suffered from the damage in a place unrelated to the instant construction project (in the course of investigation, the Defendant manufactured and completed most necessary equipment such as the twit pumps in relation to the instant construction project, and used 1.8 million won at the manufacturing cost.

Although denying the crime of this case, it was argued that all the data submitted by the defendant were revealed to be false, and the prosecutor's office that had been subsequently found to have followed the facts of the crime of this case) and ② this was that the construction of this case was not in conformity with the defendant's defense suit that "it was possible to implement the construction of this case where all preparations have to be completed by receiving the construction cost from the injured party in lump sum, but the payment of the construction cost has not been made in full." ③ The defendant is not in accord with the defendant's defense suit, ③ even though he recognized and reflected all his mistake, the defendant still has the responsibility to the injured party, but there is a doubt as to whether the reflect of the defendant is true because he still has the responsibility to the injured party. ④ The amount of fraud of this case also does not completely recover the damage even under the name of 3.70 million won, and there are other various kinds of circumstances shown in this case, such as the defendant's previous conviction, age