Of them, the part 2016 order 2734 shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the order of 2016 High Court Order 2734.

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the judgment below 2016 order 2734 part of the judgment below) did not have visited the office of the complainant on August 2013, 2013, and Defendant A did not have committed deception stating that “The complainant would lend KRW 120 million to the complainant at the cost of completing construction, such as the completion of the construction, by transferring the ownership of the 20 million household to the 150 million unit with the cost of completing the construction,” and the above 2 generation was merely a transfer of ownership in accordance with the agreement on the repayment of the contract price claim against the complainant.

B. The prosecutor’s mistake of the facts (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) (1) 2015 high order 5074 part of the Defendant’s 2015 high order 5074 part against Defendant A used the instant loan as collateral for the instant construction, but did not have the intent and ability to complete the instant construction, thereby committing deception against the victim

It is reasonable to view it.

(2) According to the statements, etc. by Q, V, and AA with credibility of the part of Defendant B, the fact that the Defendant conspireded with A in collusion with A on August 8, 2013 at the office of the complainant at the early police officer’s office may be acknowledged.

(c)

Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A and the prosecutor’s improper sentencing (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of 2014 highest 1872 and 2016 highest 993 highest 2016 highest 2734, one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of 2016 highest 2734, and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of 2015 highest 415 highest 415) are too heavy (Defendant A), or is too harsh (public prosecutor) and be frighted.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the summary of this part of the facts charged (1) (2016 order 2734) was incorporated with the construction contract that the Defendant intended to establish the 16 household unit in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the wife of Q, with the victim Q. In addition, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the said construction project from the Dongduk Construction (State), but the Defendant did not pay the construction cost normally.