A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the Defendant was not delegated the sale of the gas station of this case with the intention of defraudation from the beginning; (b) however, it is merely an arbitrary consumption after receiving the sale price of the gas station of this case.

② Furthermore, the Defendant used 340,000,000 won (=260,00,000,000 won) totaling KRW 80,000,000,000, which was paid by F as the sales price for the instant gas station (i.e., KRW 227,136,879,000) (i.e., KRW 550,000,000, KRW 396,560,560, acquisition tax on land KRW 17,545,630,00, KRW 3,045,630,590, acquisition tax on land of KRW 17,548,78,155,00, KRW 22,534,1866,00, which was actually earned by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. We examine the argument that there was no intention to commit fraud, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the court below, namely, ① although the defendant offered the original victim a loan to the principal of the instant gas station as collateral and proposed to settle the above-related debt, the victim was found to have refused this, and the victim was made a false statement. ② However, the F, the purchaser of the instant gas station, did not actually intended to purchase the gas station, but was promised to lend only the name at the request of the defendant (the investigation record 127,130 pages), and the F was promised to lend the purchase price of the instant gas station to the victim (the investigation record 127,130 pages), and therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the purchase price of the instant gas station to the victim. ③ Accordingly, the Defendant’s debt related to the gas station of this case with the purchase price received from