The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, the violation of law, and the unreasonable sentencing) had the intention or ability to pay the cateral transport fee.

The amount of punishment (4 million won of a fine) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. When the construction is completed and completed, the Defendant should have paid the victim transportation fee.

Nevertheless, the construction site did not pay the transportation charge and did not have the ability to actually pay the transportation charge.

There is no error in the judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant, without the intention or ability to pay transportation charges, requested the victim to transport cicks and acquired financial benefits equivalent to 9.120,000 won in total on four occasions, or in violation of the law, there is no error of law

Specific reasons for judgment are as follows.

① The Defendant and the victim did not have any fiduciary relationship with the cateral transport transaction.

The victim requested the payment of transportation charges after the completion of carriage.

In order for the defendant to not pay the transportation fee immediately because he did not have money, the defendant demanded to pay the transportation fee.

When the defendant completes construction works and receives them at the site, he/she shall have paid transportation charges to the victim.

② The Defendant did not pay transport charges around December 29, 2017. In such cases, the Defendant did not pay transport charges (i.e., e., 7120,000 won Nos. 12280,000 won Nos. 22566,00 won in the attached Table of the lower judgment). There was no separate asset for the Defendant to pay transport charges up to that time (i.e., e., e., e., 122

Defendant

According to the statement, on February 12, 2018, 5 million won was paid under the name of the rental fee for the summer-dong site. However, the amount so received was not paid as the transport fee.

③ The Defendant asserts that the Defendant did not pay transport charges (No. 42 million won) due to the failure to drop a cream transported by J in Changwon-si.

However, M. M. lending from the defendant was around that time.