The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, the 2015 Highest 556, supra, is liable for the payment of the construction price to the victim H by the actual contractual party to the instant construction contract.

The Defendant, at the time of the contract, expressed that “the Defendant would pay the cost of the construction work to him/her,” thereby deceiving the victim to commit fraud.

B. Even if the building was completed at the time of the instant construction contract, the Defendant, at the end of 2016 high-ranking 125, concluded a contract with the victim F and the construction contract without any specific method to pay the construction cost, and thus constitutes fraud.

2. Determination

A. The lower court held that the Defendant’s deception and deception were proven without any reasonable doubt solely on the following grounds: (a) the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor was insufficient to prove that the Defendant’s deception and deception had been proven without any reasonable doubt.

As it is difficult to see that all the facts charged were acquitted.

① With respect to the instant electric power resource construction project, the Defendant provided only land to himself, and contracted to F in a way that F is responsible for the entire construction work, and F subcontracted the civil engineering part during the construction work to G.

Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the construction price only in relation to the F, and does not directly bear the obligation to pay the construction price in relation to the subcontractor.

(2) The contract for the first construction project shall include G and victim H as a party, and the contract for the second construction project shall include F and victim H as a party to the contract.

(3) The first project is a reinforced soil project to secure a new access road.

During the process of performing the instant electric power resource construction, the existing plan was modified by holding a new road other than the first planned road in consultation with the Defendant, F, and G, and the first construction was conducted in accordance with the said modified plan.

G is awarded a subcontract for civil engineering works from F, and reinforcement soil works themselves belong to civil engineering works, thereby G is in charge.