A. (1) The Defendant did not mislead or mislead the victims of the fact, and did not have the intention of deceiving the victims.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution and fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts of the lower judgment (as to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment), the victim G had been performing construction work equivalent to KRW 85,044,480 for the construction cost, and the Defendant acquired financial benefits equivalent to the above construction cost.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the acquitted portion and the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below ex officio on the part concerning fraud and each of the crimes in the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2015 High Court 2994 High Court 1.1. High Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 3529. (1) In the first instance trial, the prosecutor, subject to lawful procedures, applied for changes to the indictment under the following [Revised charges], and applied for changes to the indictment in exchange for the same as the previous one, and permitted the same to be changed by the party members. Accordingly, the acquitted portion of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

[Revised charges] The Defendant, “The Defendant, at the office of the victim G of the fourth floor of the building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seocho-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City on August 2008, 2008, constructed two Dongs of the center building at KRW 710,000,000,000 to the victim’s 1049m2 of the forest land in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do. In that case, the construction cost of KRW 200,000 shall be paid before October 25, 2008, and the remainder of KRW 526,000,000 shall be paid until November 30, 2008.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the fact is that the victim did not have the intention or ability to pay the construction cost even if he had the victim do the construction work, as it is difficult to pay the amount of KRW 15 million monthly interest.

The defendant.