A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there was insufficient evidence supporting this part of the facts charged, even if the defendant knew that he would not have the intent or ability to purchase the right to occupy the commercial building and received the money from the victim E, there was no funds to purchase the right to occupy the commercial building by using the payment of his debt, and it was recognized that the SH Corporation was unable to purchase the right to occupy the commercial building in a normal manner by prohibiting the transfer of the right to occupy the commercial building. In full view of the above facts, the court below found the facts charged that he acquired the money from the victim by deceiving the purchase of the right to occupy the commercial building even though he did not have the intent or ability to purchase the right to purchase it

B. In light of the circumstances such as the amount of fraud of this case, the attitude of crime, and the Defendant’s penal power, etc., the sentence of one year of suspended sentence in six months sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court stated the part of “additional criminal facts” among the criminal facts under the summary of the facts charged that the lower court acquitted.

B. The judgment of the court below is recognized that the defendant received 30,000,000 won from the victim E as the purchase price for the ordinary subscription share certificates, but this part of the facts charged is insufficient to view that this part of the facts charged is proven to the extent that it can exclude a reasonable doubt in light of

① In light of the fact that E has been engaged in real estate-related business since several hundred years ago and there have been many mediations or transactions of occupancy rights with the Defendant, it seems that E seems to have been aware of the characteristics of occupancy rights transactions to a certain extent, and E pays to the Defendant money in the name of the purchase price of occupancy rights.