A. The misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, due to his self-existence, was living in a monthly life.

The victim made a false statement to the victim and did not have the intent to obtain money from the victim by using the written lease contract, and the sum of the damage amount of KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to commit the crime of fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant used the funds to enter into a lease contract by forging the written lease contract for apartments, even though the Defendant entered into a monthly lease contract, as follows, by presenting the written lease contract for apartments to the victim:

In light of the fact that the victim's demand for money, the investigative agency and the legal statement about the details of the victim's delivery of money are reliable in a specific and consistent manner, it determined that the defendant is guilty of fraud.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in this court’s judgment, i.e., the investigation agency and the court of the court below: ① The defendant cannot receive a deposit deposit of KRW 200 million in the name of the defendant since he was given a deposit of KRW 200 million in the lease on a deposit basis in the name of the investigation agency and the court of the court below; thus, the defendant was in need of money to engage in the scrap metal business, and

The amount of KRW 80 million, out of KRW 100,000,000, which was returned to the lease deposit of L apartment houses, was lent to the defendant.

“The victim’s statement was stated as “ and there is no particular circumstance to suspect the credibility of the victim’s statement, and the Defendant is believed to be genuine by using the forged pre-sale agreement note.