Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

A. misunderstanding of facts as to the judgment of the court below of first instance and misunderstanding of legal principles were to enter into a sales contract with the victim A and to pay any balance by lending funds from the bond company, but the bond company did not reverse the company's own position and did not pay any balance. Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to obtain fraud

B. Each sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, compensation order, and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The appeal case against the judgment below was consolidated in the judgment of the court of ex officio reversal following the consolidation, and each crime of the judgment below constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of performing transactions, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048 delivered on October 21, 1994). B.

In light of the above legal principles, this case is examined.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts or circumstances, i.e., (i) the defendant purchased the victim's land under the victim AA, and (ii) the defendant said that he/she would receive a loan from the victim to offer the relevant land as a security before transferring ownership, and pay the balance by receiving a down payment and an intermediate payment, using the remaining funds for the purpose of use, etc., but the investigation agency constitutes the remainder