The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing) was paid by the victim E for down payment, costs of pressure, etc. when changing the work to a new construction of the E-building remodeling work.

L Co., Ltd. completed the new construction work.

The amount of punishment (one year of imprisonment) determined is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Defendant received 60 million won as the contract deposit for remodeling construction work on December 10, 2015, under the name of the victim on December 10, 2015, as the contract deposit for the construction work on December 21, 2015, the Defendant used 64 million won in total for any other purpose unrelated to the Corporation, and the fact that the Defendant was a bad credit standing.

However, according to the victim's intent, the 60 million won was changed to X building construction before the commencement of the remodeling project, and the 60 million won was agreed to be converted to the new construction contract amount, and the electrical pressure construction became unnecessary.

Even though the defendant used the money received as the contract deposit, electricity pressure construction for any purpose other than the project, and the defendant was in an economic difficult condition at the time, it cannot be concluded that he did not have any intent or ability to carry out the remodeling project and the electrical pressure construction.

The judgment of the court below that convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant received a total of KRW 80 million from the victim under the same name as the deception statement in the attached Table 3 through 6, such as the purchase price for steel bars, rather than in the name of the down payment for the new construction of X buildings, rather than in the name of the down payment for the construction of X buildings, the Defendant received KRW 80 million from the victim.

Specific reasons for judgment are as follows.

(1) The Defendant was paid KRW 20 million on December 23, 2015, which was prior to the date of the payment of the down payment ( January 11, 2016), entered in the interior works contract (No. 4, No. 30 of the investigation record).