The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant entrusted the victim with the construction work, received the payment of the construction cost from the executor and tried to pay it again to the victim. It is merely a failure to pay the construction cost to the victim due to the failure to receive the construction cost from the executor, and there is no criminal intent to defraud the victim, and thus, criminal fraud is not established.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant has the intention of deception, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts.

2. On February 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with “E”, the executor of the said new construction site, which is a person operating an engineering work company “C” as an engineering work company, and on February 2, 2014, the Defendant was commissioned from “E” as the executor of the said new construction site.

On November 23, 2014, the Defendant called “G office” of the victim F’s operation to the effect that, in the event of the damage of the engineering work of the fish poppy, which is part of the ground civil engineering work in the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the Busan Seo-gu, Busan, the Defendant paid to the victim advance payment of KRW 16 million from the construction cost, and the remainder of the construction cost shall be settled at the end of each month and deposited at the end of the 15th of the following month.”

However, in fact, even if the Defendant received the price for the ground civil engineering works from the executor, he did not have any intent or ability to pay the price for the said civil engineering works to the victim, as the Defendant thought to first pay 8 other field companies in the same new construction site.

The Defendant had the victim perform civil engineering works from November 24, 2014 to December 20, 2014, but failed to pay KRW 31 million for the construction cost, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to the same amount.

3. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.