The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) that the defendant entered into with the Organizing Committee for the Incheon Asian Games (hereinafter “Organizing Committee”) is a contract for its legal nature, which is a contract for its legal nature, and the defendant completes the service contract and the Organizing Committee pays the agreed contract amount. As the defendant completes the service contract in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, it is paid the agreed contract amount and there was no intention to commit fraud.

In light of the fact that the expression "the final amount may be increased or decreased according to the result of the set-off" as stated in the standard contract for the task attached to the general reverse contract, it is not the meaning of settling the costs and actual inputs of the project cost calculation statement, but it is reasonable that the contract amount is settled according to the degree when the contents of the task are changed or incomplete. Therefore, it is reasonable that the defendant who fully performed the service is paid the total contract amount.

Some false entries in the work status added were inevitable in the process of signing en bloc on behalf of the head of the recruitment book or security team, and the defendant was not directly involved, and false remittance data was inevitably submitted by the Organizing Committee because the Organizing Committee demanded details of payment of personnel expenses consistent with the work expense calculation statement and work status book. However, since the defendant who completed the service in accordance with the contract can receive the contract amount regardless of whether he/she submitted false data, there was no deception by the Organizing Committee, and the Organizing Committee did not have caused damage or the defendant did not have obtained unjust pecuniary gains.

Ultimately, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which is erroneous or legal doctrine.