The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

However, the period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the ground of the initial appeal, the Defendant asserted that the part of KRW 39 million, which was paid by the injured party on October 26, 2018, was erroneous and erroneous. On the third trial date, the Defendant withdrawn this part of the claim and expressed his opinion to the effect that he recognized the crime.

The defendant's 3.9 million won paid by the injured party on August 13, 2018 is not the construction cost but the money in the name of rebates.

Even if the Defendant did not receive the said money as the name of rebates, the Defendant did not use the said money to the Corporation because he believed that the said money was rebates from G which directly entered into a contract for construction with the victim, and thus did not have any intent to commit fraud.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence to the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On August 13, 2018, the Defendant stated that the Defendant: (a) operated C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); (b) around 15:00 on August 13, 2018, the office of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”); (c) through the business directors G belonging to C, paid KRW 130 million to the victim as the price for the instant construction work of the I.S. newly constructed building located in P, Chang-si, Chang-si; (d) the Defendant paid KRW 130 million to the victim via G of the business directors belonging to C.

However, in fact, the Defendant was liable to pay 5 million won or more due to the unpaid payment to the customer, the wages to the employees, etc., and was unable to pay 1 million won or more national taxes. The office rent was not paid, and eventually, the Defendant was in an economic difficult situation to discontinue his business on November 30, 2018, and even if he received the construction payment from the injured party, it was normally accepted.