The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, since the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the rent for equipment at the time of leasing equipment from the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, from July 31, 2012 to August 12, 2012, the Defendant agreed to rent equipment and to pay equipment rent to the victim on the following day after returning the equipment and equipment. However, the Defendant paid KRW 43 million from May 15, 2012 to July 31, 2012 to the victim of the instant crime. The portion of the construction cost that the Defendant received at the time of the instant crime is deemed to have already been paid as wages and equipment rental fees. The Defendant requested the investigative agency to provide the said construction cost to the victim with additional equipment and it is difficult for the Defendant to view that the Defendant was paid KRW 46 million to the victim of the instant construction at the time of the instant case’s occurrence of shortage in paying the said construction cost, and the Defendant appears to have received additional equipment rent of KRW 60 million from the victim of the instant construction work, and thus, the Defendant appears to have received additional equipment rent of KRW 360 million.