The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is sufficiently recognized that there was a criminal intent and deception against the Defendant in light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the business and financial standing of the Defendant, etc.

2. Determination:

A. The establishment of a crime of fraud by acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the construction cost should be determined at the time of the contract, and the payment of the construction cost cannot be made due to changes in economic conditions after the contract is concluded.

Even if this is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and cannot be said to constitute criminal fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do249, Apr. 11, 1997, etc.). The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances, such as the defendant’s re-performance before and after the crime, environment, details and details of the crime, process of the transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. insofar as the defendant does not make a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2893, Jun. 12, 2008). The recognition of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the defendant’s interest, which is a subjective element of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do2893, Apr. 14, 2005).

Only if predicted, dolusent intent of fraud exists immediately.