The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

[Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal] In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as a whole, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was insufficient to prove the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant at the time of this case can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant would pay the price immediately after completion of the re-subcontract to the victim even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the price for the re-subcontract to the victim even though he did not receive the price for the sub-subcontract from the United Nations Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Korea"), so the prosecutor's above assertion is with merit.

① The victim E-management dispute resolution fund shall receive from the Defendant the re-subcontract in the amount of KRW 16,062,750 for the construction cost of the first patrolman on January 2, 2012 (hereinafter “the re-subcontract in this case”) and receive from the Defendant the same year.

1. It completed around 20.20

The victim stated that “(the Defendant) did not prepare a contract in the form of a fixed term at the police with regard to the due date for the repayment of the re-subcontract of this case, and entered into an oral contract only, and that “The construction cost will be paid upon the completion of the construction work as a matter of course as the government-funded construction work will be paid.”

(Evidence No. 121). (2) The Defendant: (a) 32,337,500 won = the construction price for the subcontract at the Taeduk Elementary School (hereinafter “instant subcontract”) from us to February 21, 2012.

1. 15 million won;

2. 17.5 million won;

2. A total amount of KRW 64-66,81 of the trial records, No. 119 of the evidence records, the above construction cost is not related to the re-subcontract work of this case, i.e., the defendant's third party.