The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the amount of the instant fraud shall be deemed to be the amount actually repaid by the victim D, not the amount of guarantee limit of the obligation to return advance payment, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

In addition, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a constructor who made a judgment of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine makes an advance payment guarantee contract by deceiving D under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and concludes an advance payment guarantee contract, and submits it to the ordering person of construction works after obtaining a certificate of advance payment guarantee, the pecuniary benefits acquired by the constructor as a security for one’s contract for the advance payment guarantee (the amount of gains) is equivalent in principle to the guarantee limit for the obligation to return advance payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5567, Nov. 24, 2006). The Defendant acquired each guarantee guarantee by deceiving the victim D as stated in the facts of the lower judgment. The Defendant acquired each guarantee guarantee by deceiving the victim D as stated in the facts of the lower judgment, and the said guarantee guarantee amount is worth a total of KRW 413,949,00,000, and thus, the Defendant cannot be exempted from liability for the total amount.

This part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

In light of the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records and changes in the judgment below, even if considering all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, including the part that the Defendant partly appropriated the amount of damages in the instant case as the shares acquired by the F Limited Partnership Company, the lower court’s sentence is without merit and cannot be deemed unfair.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.