The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The lower court rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant by misunderstanding the following facts as follows.

① The Defendant committed fraud against the victim D (Article 1 of the facts charged) in collusion with BN only by introducing BN upon the request of the victim D, but also by deceiving the victim D with KRW 120 million.

The Defendant received KRW 174 million from the victim D and delivered KRW 120 million among them to BN, and borrowed KRW 42 million to the victim. The Defendant returned the remainder of KRW 12 million to the victim and used all the said money for the purpose agreed upon with the victim.

② The Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money to the victims at the time of borrowing KRW 50 million from the victims (Article 2 of the facts charged).

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor, in this case, maintains the fraud of Defendant D among the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged, requested the modification of the indictment to add the ancillary facts charged (the embezzlement charge), and since this court permitted and changed the subject of the adjudication, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, although there are grounds for reversal of authority above, the defendant's assertion of mistake as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. On September 22, 2015, the summary of the facts charged No. 1 of the facts charged stated as follows: (a) the Defendant stated that, at the victim D’s house located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, the Defendant would be 120 million won as the cost of work to sell the pentaf and site located in Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and the victim’s house.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to trade pension.

. .....