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

Imprisonment with prison labor for the first crime as set forth in the judgment of the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the victim C) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant had a substantive right to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F land (hereinafter “F land”). Even if not, the Defendant was delegated with the right to dispose of the said F land by G as the registered titleholder of the F land and the heir of AL, who was the owner of the original F site, under the status delegated the right to dispose of the said land by T as the owner of the F site, and received a provisional contract payment from the victim C under the pretext of transfer of the right to construct the F site and the right to retention.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held that the defendant deceptioned the victim C on the premise that the defendant did not have the right to the F site is unlawful.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant, as stated in its holding, was found to have by deceiving the victim C to acquire money from the victim C in the name of the provisional contract deposit, even though the Defendant did not have the right to dispose of the F site, such as ownership, as stated in its reasoning.

① As to the process of acquiring the right to a site, the Defendant decided to proceed with the construction project of an apartment site on the same site, along with the AL who owned the F site, and at the time, AL came to have the F site transferred to the Defendant in lieu of paying the debt amounting to approximately KRW 5 billion. Accordingly, the Defendant agreed to obtain a loan equivalent to KRW 10 billion from AM bank and to grant 30% of the profits accrued therefrom to T which is the AL’s son. Thereafter, during the process of the construction project of an apartment site, the Defendant died, and as at the time, T was the heir at the time of the construction project, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the F site in the name of Da’s employees working by the Defendant.”

However, financial institutions at the time of the defendant.