The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, as a deception by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the victim FF corporation (hereinafter “victim corporation”) is important not to have the actual subcontracted construction work executed, but to have the cost of the subcontracted construction properly executed. As such, the obligation of disclosure is not recognized to inform the Defendant of whether the cost of the subcontracted construction is paid to G (hereinafter “Incheon G”) located in Incheon (hereinafter “In Incheon”). ② In addition, the victim company was aware of all the facts.

Even if there is no proximate causal relation between deception and disposal act, since there is a duty to pay the subcontract price to Incheon G in accordance with the direct payment agreement with the Incheon G, there is no proximate causal relation between the deception and disposal act (existence of causal relation). ③ A stock company B (hereinafter “B”) operated by the Defendant received only the amount determined as the price for soil construction from the damaged company, and actually paid the subcontract price to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) located in the area of the Jeonyang-gun (hereinafter “B”), and thus, the Defendant did not obtain any property benefits, and did not incur any damage to the damaged company.

(4) Since the Defendant received construction cost under the name of Incheon G, not the licensee G, for the smooth progress of the construction project, and executed it, it is not recognized that the criminal intent of deceitation or the intention of unlawful acquisition is not recognized (the intention of deception and the absence of the intention of unlawful acquisition).

The facts charged in this case are merely stated in the direct payment agreement between C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”), B, and G on August 18, 2016, and there is no direct payment agreement among the victimized company, B, and Incheon G.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the damaged company is the actual sewage supplier of Incheon G.