The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of fraud because the defendant had the intent and ability to pay the construction cost to the victim at the time when the defendant entered into a contract for construction work with the victim is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. A. Around May 6, 2010, the Defendant was awarded a contract of KRW 998,000,000 for the construction cost of the lectures and classrooms of B elementary schools.

On June 1, 2010, the Defendant stated to the victim E, who operates a limited partnership company D, at the construction site of B elementary school located in Chungcheong-gun C, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, that “The Defendant would receive progress payment from B elementary school and pay in cash the construction cost of KRW 6,2370,000 (including the value-added tax 10%) if he completed the above construction work within the school period.”

However, as the construction cost in another construction site is insufficient at the time, the defendant received construction cost from B elementary schools and thought to be used first at the above construction site, and the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost as agreed even if the above wooden construction is completed.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim complete the above wooden ground construction from around that time to August 31, 2010, and did not pay the construction cost of KRW 62,370,000, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is an objective circumstance such as the defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the defendant makes a confession.