The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was sufficiently capable or intentional of repaying the borrowed money on the ground that an apartment house under the name of the defendant was in the name of the defendant at the time when the defendant borrowed five million won from the injured party (4.7 million won after deducting the amount actually paid from the advance and three million won).

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence and the circumstances acknowledged thereby. In particular, the defendant did not fully repay the defendant's debt owed to the defendant at the time of selling an apartment building owned by the defendant because the defendant borrowed money from the injured party. ② The defendant borrowed money from the injured party and paid off money between 2-3 months (within 2-3 months according to the victim's statement).

In full view of the fact that it appears to have been, and the apartment was disposed of as above, as long as it did not make any repayment or contact with the victim, it is possible to recognize the charge of this case and the criminal intent to acquire the defendant by deceit. Thus, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. Although the Defendant asserted the illegality of sentencing along with mistake of facts on the grounds of appeal on the first trial date at the trial date at the first trial date, the Defendant’s improper argument in sentencing is merely a new assertion that was made after the lapse of the submission period of the grounds for appeal. Therefore, it is difficult to view it as a legitimate ground for appeal.

However, with respect to the grounds that affect the judgment, the court of appeals may judge ex officio even if the grounds for appeal are not included in the reasoning of appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1021, Sept. 11, 1990, etc.). In this case, ① the defendant is the first offender who has no criminal experience or investigation experience, and the criminal intent to defraud the crime of this case is also the criminal intent.