The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant would complete the registration of transfer of ownership within two months when selling each of the instant land to the victim even though the Defendant purchased the instant parcel of land from the owners and did not pay the purchase price, and did not have the ability to pay the purchase price.

It is the deception of the damaged person and the defrauded by receiving KRW 100 million as the down payment from the damaged person.

2. Lower judgment

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on evidence.

1) The Defendant purchased L land from E, F, and G (hereinafter “E, etc.”) in the name of C Co., Ltd. in the name of E, F, and G (hereinafter “E, etc.”).

2) L land was later divided into M, H, I, and N land. The Defendant was granted permission for development activities regarding M, H, and I land among the above land in the name of the said company.

3) After paying down payment of KRW 100 million, the Defendant prepared a written waiver for E, etc. during which the remainder of the purchase price was not paid. The content of the written waiver is that the Defendant paid the purchase price of N land by April 15, 2013, which was the permission for development activities, within two months after the permission for development of the said land was granted, and the Defendant waivers the status of purchaser at the time of default.

4) On March 25, 2013, after preparing a written waiver, the Defendant agreed with E, etc. on the method of paying the purchase price. The details thereof include that KRW 200 million out of the purchase price shall be paid up to April 30, 2013, and the remaining KRW 1.5 billion shall be paid up to August 30, 2013, and if the purchase price is not paid by April 30, 2013, the sales contract shall be rescinded.

around that time, the defendant tried to pay only the purchase price of the three lots of land for which permission for development was difficult, but E, etc. did not obtain permission from the defendant.