The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the grounds for appeal, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had the intent to pay the construction price to the victim even if the victim completes the construction work at the time of concluding the construction contract with the victim. As such, it may be recognized that the Defendant has

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts and violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the representative director of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) aimed at real estate development business, etc. in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building 401.

Around August 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) concluded a construction contract for interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the building E-building (hereinafter “instant building”) under the name of the Defendant Company I under the name of the H-School Industry-Academic Cooperation Center in G; (b) concluded a contract for construction of KRW 2.42 billion with the victim’s representative director, and (c) concluded a written additional construction contract with the victim’s representative director within KRW 150 million with the first progress payment, KRW 150 million with the second progress payment, KRW 75 million with the third progress payment, KRW 75 million with the fourth progress payment, KRW 347 million with the five progress payment; and (d) concluded a construction contract with the victim’s representative director within 200 million with the said construction contract amount of KRW 130 million with the said KRW 160,000,0000 from September 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

However, the defendant company is at the time 6.4 billion won of trust obligations of financial institutions.