The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, as the representative director of the Company E, was performing the F ex post facto interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration work as a result of a contract from the owner of the headquarters or franchise store, and each owner of the headquarters and each owner were unable to pay the construction cost due to a lack of cash due to the failure of the head office and each owner of the building to pay the payment of the construction cost, despite the fact that the head office and each owner of the building were unable to pay the payment of the construction cost due to the shortage of cash, the Defendant would pay all the outstanding amounts prior to the relocation of the construction to the victim G.

“Along with the purport of the foregoing, “a construction work shall be made by making a false statement to the effect that it is not paid KRW 4,00,000,000,” and “a total of 12 victims who did not receive a total of KRW 268,154,08,00 from the 12 victims and did not pay for the construction work or the supply of goods, etc. of the said amount.”

2. In light of the circumstances indicated in the lower judgment, the lower court did not have been aware that the Defendant, at the time of entering into each of the instant construction contracts with the victims, was unable to pay the construction cost on the payment date, and that the Defendant was aware of the fact that all the victims could not pay the construction cost

On the ground that the facts charged in this case appear to have been convicted.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of conviction above for the following reasons.

A. The establishment of a crime of fraud by acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the construction cost should be determined at the time of the contract, and the payment of the construction cost cannot be made due to changes in economic conditions after the contract is concluded.

Even if this is merely a mere non-performance of civil liability, it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established (Supreme Court Decision 97Do249 Decided April 11, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 97Do249 Decided June 201, 2015).