A. In fact-finding I did not give priority to the construction of warehouses and the construction of roads, and unilaterally cancelled permission to use land, and only the defendant's plan was the framework, and there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim to acquire money.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the judgment of the court below. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the following facts: (i) the defendant purchased the real estate of this case from C on October 25, 2010, which was admitted by evidence; (ii) the defendant did not fully pay KRW 184 million to C at the time; (iii) the defendant agreed to cancel the remainder of the right to collateral security and provisional seizure, etc. established on the above real estate before receiving the remainder; (iv) even according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant was fully paid the intermediate payment except the remainder from the victim and the above I; and (iv) the defendant sold the real estate of this case to the victim at the time of selling the real estate of this case, the defendant appears not to have been in an economic situation to cancel both the right to collateral security and provisional seizure, etc., based on the judgment that the criminal intent of fraud was recognized.

(2) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in the judgment of the political party, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the Defendant is led to the confession. The intent of the crime is not a conclusive intention but a

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Based on the above legal doctrine, the health unit was added to the circumstances mentioned by the lower court.