The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of receiving the instant money from the victim, was actually awarded a successful bid for the construction of a new customs house in fact, did not commit deception by notifying the victim of the financial situation of the Defendant, and the said new construction cannot be subcontracted to the victim because it was impossible to perform the said new construction because it was impossible to obtain the contract performance guarantee by failing to obtain the additional tax due to the ex post facto discovery of unpaid taxes. The Defendant merely received KRW 80 million issued by the victim and did not return it to the victim because it was impossible to return it from E, and there was no intention of

B. The court below's six-month punishment of imprisonment imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent by deception as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the existence of the criminal intent by deception should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial power, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime can also be expressed as uncertainty and the criminal intent of the criminal intent of defraudation which permits it can also be established.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the construction of a customs integrated accommodation in Korea (hereinafter “instant construction”) awarded by the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) to which the representative director is the representative director, could not be accepted in the event of a tax in arrears, and the Defendant was aware of this fact, ② the Defendant was aware of this fact, and ② the Defendant did not confirm the specific amount of the Defendant’s tax in arrears at the time, and did not call to the person in charge of the guaranteed insurance company for the cost of issuing the contract performance guarantee certificate for the instant construction by seeking about KRW 79 million.