The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of concluding the instant construction contract with the victim C, had economic capacity to pay a total of KRW 45 million for the two other construction sites at the time of the conclusion of the instant construction contract with the victim C. Although the Defendant had the intent and ability to complete the instant construction project by receiving the construction cost from the victim C, but there was no intention to commit fraud because it was later aggravated and failed to properly implement the construction contract due to the aggravation of financial difficulties.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the crime of fraud was established on this part, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, the Defendant, upon receiving KRW 10 million from the victim C on January 24, 2018, used KRW 4.99 million equivalent to half of the construction cost at G construction site, used some of the construction cost as construction cost at G construction site, and used it as construction cost at G construction site on March 7, 2018. ③ There was no income from the failure to receive the intermediate care hospital located in F at the end of September 21, 2017. ④ Around December 21, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 11790,000 as a violation of the Labor Standards Act, and was not paid the construction cost at other construction site.

In light of the above circumstances, it is deemed that the Defendant could not complete the construction work of this case properly as scheduled, such as bearing a large quantity of obligations or having no income, and having experienced difficulties in securing materials necessary for the construction work even if the Defendant received the construction work price in this case from the victim C due to the lack of income. Therefore, it is determined that the Defendant had the intent to obtain fraud at the time of concluding the contract

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3...