The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the part on occupational breach of trust, the Defendant was awarded a ston construction contract with the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) in the name of KRW 45 million and re-subcontracted to G in the name of KRW 38.4 million, but as a result, the additional construction cost occurred and the additional construction cost was paid to G, thereby causing no damage to the victim.

B. In relation to the attempted fraud part, the Defendant’s claim for the payment even without performing some unclaimed and waterproof construction works, but this is merely a claim for the payment that has not been executed and has not been received other construction works, not an excessive claim for the construction cost.

2. According to the evidence examined by the lower court, the lower court determined as follows: (i) the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the victimized company using the name of “Ftel”, “Ftel”, waterproof and ston construction contract while working as the site warden of the victimized company; (b) calculated the total amount of KRW 36,500,000 per square meter in relation to Ston construction as KRW 32,000 per square meter; (c) concluded a sub-subcontract contract with G; (b) the Defendant claimed KRW 31,00,000 in total amount of KRW 38,40,000 in total; and (b) the Defendant claimed against the victimized company for KRW 430 square meters, the amount of the waterproof construction cost of KRW 14,527,00 in total, and the amount of the waterproof construction work. However, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant failed to perform the waterproof construction work.

As long as the above facts are acknowledged, G has caused the additional construction cost by performing construction works more than the contents of the re-subcontract contract.

Even if there is no influence on the establishment of the crime of occupational breach of trust, and the defendant would receive other construction cost from the injured company in addition to the design of this case and the waterproof.

Even if the attempt to commit fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime.

Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.