The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles, the subcontract for “AE’s blasting, excavation, and construction, etc.” (hereinafter “the subcontract of this case”) entered into between the P Co., Ltd. and the AD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AD”) is not a unit price contract entered into based on the unit price and rate for an individual process or item, but a unit price contract is the total amount for which the construction cost is claimed according to the flag rate, and thus, even if the Defendant actually carried out construction works less than the unit price, fraud is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the 1st subcontract, the nature of the subcontract of this case with regard to payment method is based on determining whether the Defendant’s assertion of grounds for appeal in this part of this case is justifiable and whether the facts charged are recognized, first of all, we examine

In light of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Korea Highway Corporation and the victim AD entered into a contract for construction works according to alternative bid method. ① In the case of a contract for alternative tender, it is not allowed to increase the contract price, except in the case of a contract for alternative tender due to the reasons attributable to the Government or due to force majeure, such as natural disasters, etc., and the method of paying the construction cost is paying the progress payment according to the honor and the progress of each process like the contract company. ② The testimony in the AK and the AK court court court decision made by the witness and the AL applied for theness of the design when the design amount is entered in the design.