The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution regarding the part concerning the violation of the Labor Standards Act against B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I among the facts charged as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and the part concerning the facts charged (violation of Labor Standards Act) as stated in the judgment. Since both the Defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissal of public prosecution, the part concerning the dismissal of public prosecution as mentioned above was separated and finalized.

Therefore, this Court's rejection of prosecution is excluded from the scope of adjudication.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the statements of victims [the part concerning innocence (the part concerning the facts charged) around August 5, 2015, which was rendered in the original judgment, and the part concerning the charge of fraud (the part concerning the charge of fraud (the facts charged), around August 5, 2015, 2018, 201, 2019 and 227)] and the fact that the defendant was suffering from serious financial difficulties at the time, all of the charges of fraud in this part can be recognized.

Unlike this, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspension of execution in six months of imprisonment, community service, 120 hours of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on each of the facts charged by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the Defendant was the victims at the time of the act, or that there was an intentional fraud, to the extent that there was no reasonable doubt.

① In light of the fact that the victim entrusted the Defendant with interior works, and the fact that the actual construction was completed by approximately 70-80%, the issue of non-performance of civil liability is merely the issue of non-performance of civil liability. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor was the victim without the intention or ability to perform construction works at the time of the act on August 7, 2017.

It is difficult to deem that there was an intentional act of fraud or fraud.

(2) Article 2019-Ma223-1: The defendant and the victim have continuously transacted, and the defendant and the victim shall be the victim.