The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of June 17, 2010, had sufficient intent and ability to subcontract the H new construction project contracted by the Defendant to the victim, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although it was impossible to recognize such deception or deception. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 12, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years of imprisonment for fraud at the Suwon District Court for a period of one year and six months, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 20, 201.

On June 17, 2010, the Defendant: (a) at the Suwon Branch Office, E (hereinafter “E”) located in five stories in Suwon-gu D Building at Suwon-si, Suwon-si; (b) “F and G” were the president of the Suwon District; and (c) contracted H new construction works located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do; (b) the Defendant concluded a false statement that H new construction works will be subcontracted at the prime cost.

However, for the new construction of H, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism needs to approve and grant subsidies from the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and I was in a state that the Foundation did not obtain approval for the resumption of construction from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism, and the defendant was also aware of this, and there was no intention or ability to subcontract the new construction of H to the victim J (hereinafter “J”).

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 5 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative (K) account under the name of the Defendant for the performance guarantee for construction works, and acquired it by deceiving the victim more than 135 million won (hereinafter “the instant money”) through a total of 10 times, such as the statement in the attached crime list, from around October 22, 2010 to around October 22, 2010.

B. The lower court’s determination is as follows.