The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and records, ① the contract for each of the instant construction works in the judgment of the original court was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant as the representative director, and K was merely a director of the company, ② the written statement to the effect that the Defendant and R transferred all the Defendant’s rights to the instant construction works was concluded after the conclusion of each of the instant construction works, and ③ R was to bear the construction cost of each of the instant construction works.

Even if this is only an agreement between the defendant and R, and the victims entered into a contract for construction on the premise thereof.

(4) It is difficult to see that prior to the conclusion of each of the instant contracts for construction works in light of the Defendant’s actions, such as construction supervision and direction, it is difficult to view that the Defendant already transferred the rights and obligations related to construction works to KR

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the above circumstances and evidence, it is reasonable to find the court below guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deception of fraud, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to deception of fraud.

In addition, the crime of fraud under Article 347 of the Criminal Act is established by deceiving a person to receive property or acquiring pecuniary benefits, and the specific value of the property or pecuniary benefits received therefrom is merely about the sentencing, and it does not affect the establishment of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7288, Apr. 19, 2007). Therefore, the allegation of the grounds for appeal that there was an error in recognizing the value of pecuniary benefits acquired by deception is nothing more than the argument of unfair sentencing.

(b).