The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Victim and Koduk Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Culd Construction”)

6:4) The Corporation shall form a joint supply and demand organization (the ratio of investment) and shall establish a water supply system construction works in the area of the Netherlands and the rural area (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction works”).

(2) The Defendant, a representative director, was awarded a contract (hereinafter “D”) and agreed to pay 13% of installment payments and 8% of installment payments to the victims of the instant construction project (hereinafter “instant blanket subcontract agreement”). As the Framework Act on Construction prohibits a blanket subcontract, the Defendant drafted a subcontract agreement only with respect to soil works, reinforced concrete works, and water supply and drainage works (hereinafter “instant subcontract works”) during the instant construction project.

3) D receives direct payment from the Navy, the ordering authority, of the instant subcontract price, and the remainder of the construction price under the instant blanket subcontract agreement, received from the victim and Soungung Construction in accordance with the share ratio, and deposited the amount excluding installment payments into the D account. 4) Accordingly, D merely received KRW 841,383,90 from the victim as the remainder of the construction price under the instant blanket subcontract agreement and August 20, 209 as the remainder of the construction price under the instant blanket subcontract agreement, and did not receive double payment of the construction price for six months following the instant subcontract agreement (the victim paid the amount excluding installment 13 percent of the construction price received from the Nam-gun).

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts admitted by the lower court as to the mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant’s construction cost for the six-month period from the victim.