The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not complete the instant construction work because he did not pay the additional construction cost that the victim intended to pay in addition, and did not acquire the price of the interior work from the beginning without intention or ability to properly do so.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts in the instant construction contract, namely, (i) the Defendant, even if there was no experience in damaging the interior works of a commercial building before the instant construction contract, concluded the instant construction contract with the victim himself/herself, and (ii) the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the victim, presenting a considerable amount of money needed for the actual construction due to the lack of the written estimate; (iii) the Defendant used part of the construction cost received from the victim at a place unrelated to the instant construction contract; and (iv) the Defendant did not pay the additional construction cost at the Defendant’s request on April 13, 2017, and there was no other circumstance to deem that the victim refused the Defendant’s request to pay the additional construction cost, and it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the victim was not able to complete the construction due to the failure of the victim to pay the additional construction cost. In full view of the facts charged, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as the victim of the instant construction project, did not have the intent or ability to deceive the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Compared with the first instance judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing.