All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants were in charge of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles

Even though I agreed to "not to suspend construction work with the service price or even if the service price is not paid, it does not operate a sports marina room with the wind to suspend the construction work, and the victim provided sufficient security for the security deposit. It is not possible to recognize the Defendants' intent of deception or deception against the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of community service order, Defendant B’s imprisonment with labor for October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, etc., unless the defendant makes a confession, and the crime of fraud is established even through willful negligence. As the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, dolusent intention refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and there

In order to determine the possibility of occurrence of a crime, not only has the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, but also there is a internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the actor accepted the possibility of occurrence of the crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but also on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed, the possibility of occurrence of the crime should be evaluated and confirmed from the standpoint of the offender (Supreme Court Decision 26 February 26, 2009).