2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

However, this judgment is delivered to Defendant A.

A. The punishment of Defendant A (six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is the building to be newly constructed on the ground of the F in the case of Pakistan with the victim and the party who was delegated by the superior defendant A, the representative director of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant building”).

2) The sales contract for subparagraph G (hereinafter “instant sales contract”)

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the contract, the instant building was deemed as completion of construction and received KRW 60 million from the victim as part of the purchase price. After that, whether the instant contract was delayed due to unexpected circumstances, such as the Defendant’s failure to raise funds for the completion of the instant building, etc., and the instant contract was not implemented as scheduled, and not by deceiving the victim in collusion with the Defendant A. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the charges against the Defendant is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of unjust sentencing (such as imprisonment for four months, suspension of execution for two years, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts shall be made at the time of such act, and the establishment of a crime shall not be punished for fraud on the ground that the Defendant’s non-performance status may result in changes in economic circumstances after such act was committed.

Therefore, when determining the establishment of fraud by deceit of so-called parcelling-out price, whether the defendant had the intention to commit the fraud at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract or at the time of the receipt of the sales price, that is, even if the sales contract was concluded on the objects of sale at that time and the proceeds of the sale are received, it is to sell the objects to the buyer.