The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the fraud was made on March 4, 2013, Defendant A’s assertion on the fraud, and Defendant A did not say that “A became a fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent fluent, and prepared a cash.

The victim was well aware that L/A was unable to secure land and that design service costs could not be paid simultaneously with the contract, and the design service cost agreed to pay the land ownership by receiving the loan as security when securing the land ownership.

B) Although Defendant A was carrying out the Gwangju Officetel business, Defendant A was unable to obtain the land ownership due to the opposition of AF, one of the owners of the land, and as a result, he was unable to obtain the land ownership due to the diving of W, it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent to obtain the acquisition by deception to Defendant A. There is no objective evidence to recognize that the acquired amount is KRW 85 million.

2) Defendant A did not say that “the victim would have a place of money immediately and thus the architectural design would be reached.” The Defendant did not say that “the victim would have a place of money immediately.”

Defendant

A A entered into an oral contract with the victim stating that “If you receive a loan as security and pay money, I will also pay the expenses for the design of an officetel in Gwangju,” and later written contract was drawn up.

Since Defendant A could not prepare a large amount of money at once, Defendant A requested the victim to change the service cost by dividing the amount of KRW 6 million per unit of electric power resource, but the victim refused it and suspended the service contract.

B. As Defendant A actually carried out the project of the Permitted Electric Source Housing and terminated the design service contract with the victim, the third generation after concluding the design service contract with the other construction designer and the design modification is completed, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A had a criminal intent to acquire it.