The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged mistake of facts, by disposing of “G” and “I,” which had been already operated, intended to pay the price for the acquisition of the instant main point to the victim. The Defendant did not pay any balance following the rescission of the contract by the K that received the “G” and did not pay the price for the acquisition to the victim because the disposition of “I” was not made in accordance with the plan, and did not receive the business rights of the main point of this case by deceiving the victim without any intention or ability to pay the acquisition price from the beginning.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination (as to the assertion of factual errors)

A. On June 30, 201, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant will take over the instant main points with KRW 175 million and KRW 175 million from November 30, 201 to the victim’s main points of “E” (hereinafter “instant main points”).

However, in fact, the Defendant was in bad credit standing, and only the profits of “G” and “I” located in “G” and “I” located in the Busan Dong-gu, Seonam-gu, Busan, which is the sole cause of the Defendant’s operation, did not have any intent or ability to pay the total amount of KRW 175 million.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, obtained business rights of the main office of this case equivalent to KRW 175 million from the victim on June 30, 201, and acquired pecuniary profits equivalent to the same amount.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, there is sufficient room to view that the Defendant’s failure to pay part of the acquisition price of the instant main points to the victim is due to the fact that the Defendant disposed of “G” and “I” already operated as planned and did not collect the purchase price, and that the Defendant otherwise.