Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is no proof of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On March 7, 2012, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) stated that “the Defendant would sell the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) and the instant land to KRW 122,50,000 in total at the Plaintiff E (the age of 41) at a D restaurant located in Ysan-gu, Busan-si; and (b) expressed the fence of the J-owned land adjacent to the instant land (hereinafter “J land”) which separates the boundary between H and packaging roads; and (c) expressed the fence of the said land as if it were included in the instant land.

However, in fact, I was H ownership and was not included in the land of this case, and it was not possible to open the access road of this case from the packaging road to the land of this case without the consent of the Dong.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 112,00,000 from the victim as the real estate sale price.

B. In light of the legal principles and circumstances of the judgment, the court below can find that the defendant had a criminal intent to defraud money by deceiving the victim as if the land of this case is included in J land.