The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was temporarily in a state of excess of his/her obligation, and paid money for construction work at another construction site.

In light of the experience of new construction of officetels, the defendant's experience, the actual acceptance of orders, and the progress of the construction of this case, etc., the defendant had the intent and ability to complete the franchise by being awarded a contract from the injured party, so there is no intention to commit deception or fraud.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to complete the construction work.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

The court below, based on its stated reasoning, did not have the intent or ability to complete the telecom construction even if the defendant received the construction cost from the injured party.

Based on the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts, as alleged by the defendant, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, X's statements and written statements and estimates submitted by the defendant in the trial.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The cost of construction acquired by the Defendant is large, and the victim seems to have suffered enormous material and mental suffering due to the instant crime, and the victim continuously wanted to punish the Defendant.

However, it appears that the Defendant had no record of punishment in addition to the one-time fine, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to the difficulties in the body and business of construction games, and that it did not commit the instant crime with conclusive intent.