The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendants did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation to the Defendants, and the victims paid the money claimed by the Defendants.

Even if it does not exceed the construction cost to be received by Defendant A, damage to the victim is not incurred.

Judgment

In the case of exercise of rights by means of deception, if the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the act of deception belonging to such means are comprehensively observed, and such deception cannot be acceptable as a means of exercise of rights under social norms, the exercise of rights constitutes fraud.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1405, Oct. 14, 1997; 2002Do5085, Dec. 24, 2002). In addition, in a crime of fraud involving deception of money, if there is a delivery of money by deception, the crime of fraud is established by itself as an infringement on the victim’s property, and a reasonable amount has been paid.

shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.

Even if the crime of fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud, even if some of the proceeds are paid, the amount obtained by the fraud is not the difference between the amount given from the victim and the amount obtained by deducting the proceeds.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6012, Oct. 11, 2007). The Defendants asserted that this case’s health stand back to the instant case, and the Defendants were identical in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court rejected this in its part of the summary of evidence.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the above legal principles, it is legitimate to recognize and determine the facts of the court below, and the defendants' assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it is without merit.