A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. Error 1) The victim J joined the said 13th and 22th and received the said 13th and October 13, 2018. Therefore, the part concerning the fraud of the said 13th and 13th and 77 million won as stated in the list of crimes does not constitute fraud, and the amount of damage is 37,770,000,000 won calculated by subtracting the said 40 million won from the total amount of damage 77,777,000 from the total amount of damage. The order of the crime list is the sequence of the crime list of the modified facts charged, and the amount of damage and the amount of the said sum are also reflected in the changed facts charged. In addition, since the said victim was paid in the said 50,0000 installments among 10 times, there is no property damage in fact suffered by the said victim G by G 19,000 days, and the said victim was subscribed to the said 19th and 19th and 2019 days.

Therefore, the part concerning the defraudation of the total sum of 19 days as indicated in Nos. 80,81, 82, 85, 88, 92 is not a crime, but a crime is not established, and the total amount of damage is KRW 13,3620,000 after deducting the total sum of damages from the total amount of KRW 13,3620,000.

In addition, since the above victim has failed to pay 40 million won in advance to the so-called strike, the actual property damage is the amount deducted.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment ex officio (Changes in indictment);

A. The prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with the prosecutor, and since this court permitted it and changed the object of the adjudication, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

B. Although the above ground for ex officio reversal exists, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still necessary to be examined below.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a crime of fraud involving deceitation of relevant legal principles, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it would itself be an infringement on the victim's property, thereby fraud.