The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The public performance held by F for the proposal of the reasons for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was already agreed around November 2014.

After that, the defendant received a request for correction from the G in charge of the F (hereinafter referred to as the "G").

However, the Defendant had a fiduciary relationship with G while continuing a long-term performance of F, and in the case of HD companies, it is difficult to think that he/she refuses to participate in the performance on the ground of the attempted amount due to the practice in which he/she has participated in the performance at all times.

Therefore, the defendant received a written request for correction.

In addition, I do not think that the performance will be actually non-existent.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty has no intention to commit fraud, and the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire the horses by deception at least.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

① On January 2015, the Defendant assumed around KRW 480 million for the unpaid amount to HD companies, and there is room for dispute over G, but it appears that the Defendant was liable for the unpaid amount of KRW 250 million or more recognized by the Defendant.

② From January 27, 2015 to February 10, 2015, G demanded the legal representative to settle the unpaid amount to the Defendant’s side on three occasions from January 27, 2015, and in this case, even if it is clear and repeated that HD companies have given notice of non-performance.

Therefore, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the possibility that performance could not be performed if the defendant could not settle the unpaid payment to the sub-contractor.

It is reasonable to view it.

③ The Defendant also transferred the instant case to HD companies.