All the judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

In this case, the applicant for compensation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) Da, E, and F (hereinafter “D, etc.”) suffered an injury to Defendant and filed a complaint by Defendant (1).

Nevertheless, since the court below convicted the defendant of this part of the charges, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) On August 2010, at the time when the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the victim H and the Gyeongnam Development-gun (hereinafter “instant building”), the Defendant had sufficient means to pay the construction cost to the victim H, as well as the Defendant merely had sufficient means to pay the construction cost, and the unpaid amount is KRW 10 million, and thus, constitutes a crime of fraud.

Nevertheless, since the court below accepted this part of the facts charged and sentenced the defendant guilty, it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the first judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (with regard to the second judgment of the court below), the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to determining the grounds of appeal by public notice (the first judgment), where the service of documents becomes impossible ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds of appeal by public notice, an attempt should be made to find a place where a defendant can receive delivery, such as serving documents at the actual place of residence recorded in the record prior to the decision by public notice or viewing by telephone, etc., and it is unlawful to render a judgment by serving documents by public notice and without making a statement of the defendant without taking such measures.

I would like to say.

(Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7145 Decided February 25, 2005, etc.). According to the records of the first instance judgment, the Defendant is the police.