1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed;

2. An application for remedy by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Since the party (the contractor) who entered into a contract for interior construction (the main contractor) with the victim as to the instant “G main points” (hereinafter “the instant main points”) in misunderstanding of facts is K operated by leasing and operating the main points of the instant case, not the Defendant, the Defendant is responsible for paying the price for interior works to the victim, and the Defendant has no intention to commit fraud.

As such, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the party to the contract for the construction of interior technology in this case is the defendant is erroneous, which affected the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court on the assertion of mistake of facts: ① the victim concluded the instant interior construction contract from the police to the court of the lower court, and stated that there was no mentioning about the contents of the contract with K at the time of the contract. K also stated in the trial court that it did not participate in the conclusion of the instant interior construction contract; ② the Defendant as well as the Defendant were not the Defendant at the time of the investigation by the police; ② the statement of K, who was not the Defendant at the time of the investigation by the police, was not the Defendant at the time of the investigation by the police, was made by the Defendant and the victim, ③ the “Integian construction contract” prepared on September 20, 201 under the name of the Defendant and the victim; ③ the representative director’s official seal of the E-liability company operated by the Defendant as the victim at the time of the Defendant’s name was affixed, and K did not attend the said contract at the time of the completion of the construction project, and ④ the Defendant did not attend the 10.