The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the victim set the down payment of the new commercial housing construction work (hereinafter “the instant construction work”) as indicated in the lower judgment at KRW 45 million, which is 10% of the construction cost.

Although the Defendant provided that the victim would purchase materials, etc. related to the instant construction by receiving down payment of KRW 45 million to the victim, the Defendant merely received the said KRW 45 million as down payment and did not receive it as material expenses.

B. The Defendant received design cost of KRW 10 million from the injured party, and completed design drawings for the instant construction work, and completed construction permission, but the contract was terminated by mutual agreement between the injured party and the construction delayed.

(c)

At the time of receiving the above 45 million won from the injured party, the defendant did not have the intention to obtain the fraud by means of self-reliance.

2. Determination

A. The defendant also held that the judgment of the court below 1.

A. B. The argument as described in the Paragraph (b) and the lower court rejected the above argument in its reasoning of determination.

When an appellate court intends to re-examine a first instance judgment and ex post facto determine the same, even though there is no new objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc. Furthermore, without such exceptional circumstance, the appellate court should not reverse without delay the judgment on the recognition of facts in the first instance judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the first instance trial, and there is no evidence newly adopted by the lower court and its reasoning are inconsistent with the evidence duly examined by the lower court.