The direct evidence of the Defendant, at the time of the sale and purchase of the instant land, deceiving victim H by stating that it is possible for the Defendant to operate a manufacturing factory on the instant land within two months, is the only statement of I to the effect that “I shall obtain approval for the alteration of the use of the instant land for the purpose of shipbuilding equipment business without molding until early December 2007,” and that I’s above statement is reversed several times in the investigative agency and the court of original instance, and it is inconsistent with I’s statement. In addition, it is inconsistent with the proviso of Article 7 of the contract prepared at the time of the conclusion of the sale and purchase contract on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), and thus, I’s statement is not credibility.

In addition, the land in this case was land where change of purpose of use is possible, and the defendant prepared documents for the application for cancellation of designation and approval of the project operator around the beginning of December 2007, which was promised contrary to I’s assertion, and the failure to receive documents was due to the reason that I demanded cancellation of the sales contract in this case around October 2008.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds of the statement of I without credibility. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment also purported to the effect that the Defendant alleged in the grounds for appeal.