All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Defendant B was employed by G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) as the representative director, and Defendant B was employed by G as the site warden of the steel and concrete construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) from H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”). While Defendant B was subcontracted by H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”), Defendant B was working as the site warden of the steel and concrete construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”). However, the lower court did not examine Defendant B’s witness with respect to AH, which introduced Defendant B to Defendant A, and determined that G subcontracted the instant construction work to the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine due to failure to examine.

In full view of the fact that the Defendants could have predicted from July 2013 to the point that they could not pay the victims the construction material rent and wage due to the instant construction project from around the point of view of the lack of funds, the Defendants had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation with the Defendants, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendants did not prepare any particular solution; (b) provided the victims with continuous construction materials and labor until December 5, 2013; and (c) Defendant A withdrawn the fourth amount paid by I on December 9, 2013 and used personally.

Even if recognized, the court below had the intent to commit the crime by deception against the Defendants.

It is difficult to conclude it.

As such, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to whether G subcontracted the instant construction to Defendant B, the lower court’s judgment and the lower court acknowledged that the instant construction subcontracted to Defendant B by G operated by Defendant A was re-subcontracted to Defendant B. As such, the Prosecutor’s allegation in Paragraph (a) is without merit.

Defendant A, as the representative director of G, operated G, is only the site of G in an investigative agency.