The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The evidence submitted to the lower court by mistake of the facts alone had the criminal intent to commit the crime by deception

Although it seems insufficient to conclude it, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous and erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The existence of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud of the relevant legal principles, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the victim, unless the defendant is led to the confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1070, Feb. 14, 2008, etc.). (B) Determination 1) The part against the victim C, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court below, is as follows: ① The victim C was aware of the defendant by being introduced from L who was entrusted with construction work; ② the defendant received construction cost of KRW 130,000,000 from C, under the pretext of contract deposit, etc.; ③ the defendant started construction work around September 23, 2012, and ③ if the defendant additionally paid construction cost to C, he would give the maximum possible payment.

On October 16, 2012, C transferred KRW 50 million to the Defendant on October 16, 2012; (4) the construction has not been completed and has not been completed as a promise; (5) the Defendant did not mean that the money would be used as materials and personnel expenses other than the construction requested by C when receiving construction expenses from the victim C; and (6) even based on the Defendant’s statement made at an investigative agency, the Defendant is not requested by C when receiving additional construction expenses from C.