All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not deceiving the victim to the effect that “the Defendant would transfer the window-type shuter to resolve the problem of lien until March 2016 by resolving the problem of lien,” and the Defendant entrusted the Defendant with the conclusion of the lease contract under the condition that at least KRW 50 million should be deposited in G, thereby allowing the victim to refuse the conclusion of the lease contract. At the time, the Defendant provided a plan to raise funds to solve the problem of lien, and at the time there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation, as the Defendant had the intent to transfer the store to the victim and had the ability to do so.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may fully recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent of deception and deception.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) The Defendant, who was delegated by the Defendant, concluded a lease agreement with the victim, and during that period, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as in the facts charged. However, according to the witness G, C, and D’s statement with the assent of the lower court, it is recognized that at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant presented to the victim terms and conditions as in the facts charged through G, C, and that the lien issue would be resolved immediately.

2) However, the Defendant, at the time, is worth KRW 1 billion to the construction business operator, as the Defendant written test.