The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation, even though the criminal intent to commit the crime of defraudation is sufficiently recognized, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, as a manager of D (hereinafter “D”) around March 22, 2012, ordered “E” construction work from Sacheon-si around March 22, 2012. On March 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) at D offices located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungwon-si; (b) ordered G, an employee, to enter into a subcontract with the content that “E” construction work cost at KRW 377,195,282; (c) cost and payment period at KRW 70 per cent (three-month maturity) after receipt of the payment period; and (d) KRW 30 per cent of cash 30 per cent of the payment period at the time of the order; (b) the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the construction cost; and (c) even if the Defendant had not been aware of the intent or ability to pay the construction cost due to the serious financial crisis of D and I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”); and (d) the Defendant did not have any risk of the payment of the construction cost from H 27.