The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take property or obtaining pecuniary benefits by inducing such act of disposal (Article 347(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). “Fraud” means that the other party misleads the other party to the fact that it is the basis for determining a disposal act. “Disposition” refers to an act of disposal of property that provides property to the actor, etc. or gives property benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do484, Apr. 27, 2001; 2015Do13024, Jan. 28, 2016; 2015Do13024, etc.). Meanwhile, if an act of receiving money from the co-offender by committing a joint fraud is not only an act of giving and receiving money from the other party to the construction contract but also an act of giving and receiving money from the other party to the construction business, it cannot be deemed that the act of giving and receiving the said money constitutes a separate crime of breach of trust.