Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. The Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the original judgment.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable when the Defendant was sentenced to a punishment of four years and six months in total on the same kind of case and considering the circumstances in which the sentence became final and conclusive.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. We examine ex officio the Defendant’s appeal of unfair sentencing before examining the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing.

According to the records, after the decision of the court below was rendered, the defendant appealed from the Seoul Central District Court on February 14, 2013 to a punishment of one year for fraud. On April 24, 2013, the above court of appeal shall be sentenced to a punishment of one-year imprisonment for fraud. On August 13, 2014, the court of appeal shall reverse all the judgment of the court of first instance and sentenced the defendant to a punishment for three years and six months for a single punishment. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of appeal on November 13, 2014, but the above sentence becomes final and conclusive after the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of the dismissal of appeal on November 13, 2014. Since the crime for which each of the judgment of the court below and the above sentence became final and conclusive is related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court of appeal shall not be sentenced to each of the crimes in consideration of equity in the case where it simultaneously ruled pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to determination of facts, and thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was unable to exercise the right to enter into a contract on the sale of the newly constructed building at the time, and thus, even if the Defendant received an investment or loan from the victim, it was not able to distribute or redeem the profit within the agreed time limit, the sales agency contract with the victim is concluded.