The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact-finding and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby recognizing the Defendant’s fraud, when it was concluded on November 15, 2016, and the Defendant reported it to the Labor Agency at around October 2016 and reported it to the Sung-gu Office, which is the place of the order, but did not report it to the place of the order at the victim’s request; ③ approximately KRW 300 million out of the total construction cost of the instant subcontract was not paid; ③ there was another subcontract between the Defendant and the damaged company at the time, and the remainder of other contracts was paid.

In relation to the fraud of borrowed money among the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the arguments or ex officio submitted after the appeal is not timely filed.

Since the victim borrowed KRW 20 million to the defendant and requested the re-subcontractors of the victimized company to pay the construction cost, the defendant paid the construction cost to the above-mentioned company ordered by the victim, there was no intention to obtain fraud.

The grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing are examined together with the assertion or ex officio, which was not timely filed.

The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below also made a detailed statement of the defendant's assertion and its judgment (which is recognized as the scope of fraud in light of the circumstances in the market) under the title "decision on the argument of the defendant and the