The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A contract for construction works which have been forged.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud by Defendant and Prosecutor): The conclusion of the construction contract (the nominal business (UP) contract, hereinafter “instant contract”) which unfolded KRW 500 million for the construction and the damaged company is in accordance with the direction of the representative director E of the victimized company intending to raise a non-financing amounting to KRW 500 million, and thus, it cannot be deemed as deceiving the victimized company.

B) Prosecutor: (a) under a false contract concluded by a contracting party and a damaged company entered into the instant contract; (b) the victim paid 500 million won of the unfilled construction cost to a contracting party under the said contract; and (c) even though the total amount of KRW 500 million should be deemed as the amount of damage, the judgment of the court below which determined the amount of damage as KRW 300 million is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the other 200 million won on the ground that the commencement of the execution is recognized, thereby constituting an attempted crime, is illegal.

2) The contract for the forgery of a private document and the exercise of the above-mentioned document (Defendant D) was made in relation to the construction of a new camping project conducted by H in fact by H, which was made under the comprehensive delegation of name D.

B. As to the punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment), the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is too unafford, and the prosecutor is too unafford and unfair.

2. Judgment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court and the appellate court as to whether the act of deception constitutes a fraudulent act, the victimized company recognized that the contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception as a construction price higher than the actual construction price, and otherwise, dismissed the construction price as alleged by the Defendant.