The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant had the intent and ability of the victim to get a subcontract for a civil engineering work among the construction works of “G”, and did not receive KRW 100 million (10 million cashier’s checks) from the victim, and received KRW 50 million from the victim as the fees for the civil engineering work, or the victim did not receive a subcontract from F, and the victim did not have the ability of the victim to perform the construction work, and did not prepare all the fees for the civil construction work as promised to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below and the court below, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months as of March 26, 2009 with respect to U and the victim P on November 29, 2013 and two months as of December 5, 2010 with respect to the victim P, and the judgment was finalized on May 29, 2014.

Since each of the above frauds against the defendant, for which the judgment of the court below has become final and conclusive, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment for frauds should be imposed in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously in accordance with the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake still exists.