The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From among the funds received by Defendant A (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) from the victim, 50,000 won received around August 17, 2016 from Defendant A is not a loan for the preparation of blasting construction sites.

In addition, Defendant A had the intent and ability to pay 1.1 million won at the time.

B. In light of the background leading up to the delivery of the victim’s money against Defendant B of mistake of facts, Defendant B’s deception could not be deemed as deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, or the victim’s dispositive act was involved in the mistake due to Defendant B’s deception. At the time, Defendant B did not have the intent to commit fraud, as it was actually promoting the development project of mass production, and thus, there was no intention to commit fraud. 2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant B of unjust sentencing (fine 7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Defendant A’s assertion (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) in this subsection refers to “Defendant A”.

(1) On June 15, 2016, the summary of the charge against the Defendant: (a) on June 15, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the Victim C to receive payment for the completed portion of the construction work, “If the Defendant has no money to go to his house, and he would receive payment for the completed portion of the construction work if he borrowed 600,000 won.”

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the victim's money after receiving progress payment, because there was no specific income from the construction that was in progress.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received 600,000 won from the victim’s account under the name of the Defendant (E) on the same day.

(2) On August 17, 2016, the Defendant, who committed the crime of August 17, 2016, called false statement to the victim, stating that “If he/she lends KRW 500,000 to the victim because he/she had no cost of internal use, he/she would receive the progress payment along with the borrowed money prior to the lending of KRW 500,00,000.”

However, the defendant did not have any construction work that was in progress at the time, and there is no particular import.