The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the facts (i.e., the defendant, as stated in the list of crimes Nos. 3, 5, and 9 as indicated in the holding of the court below, could be recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim and acquired 2,550,000 won, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2. The sentence of the court below (two months of imprisonment) which is unfair because it is too unfasible.

B. The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the reasons for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, prior to the determination of the reasons for appeal by authority, the prosecutor respectively deleted 3,6, and 7 from the trial of the court below the crime sight table Nos. 3, 6, and 5 at the trial of the court below, and applied for amendments to the indictment that “one million won in cash” in the first five times is “one million won in cash,” and “the above name” in the first eight times is “the name as the down payment in kind in I building,” and “the name as the down payment in the third third third third third third party in T” in the first nine times is “the name as the down payment in T, another third third party,” and “the aggregate KRW 45,80,000,000,000,” respectively, and the judgment of the court below was modified to that effect, and thus it becomes no longer possible to maintain it.

However, even if there are such reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the facts charged in relation to the above crime Nos. 5, 8, and 9, which the court below found not guilty, is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant, at No. 5 No. 5 of the crime sight list, recognized the fact that he received KRW 2 million from the injured party on the above date and time. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the victim’s trial testimony, it can be recognized that the Defendant acquired it from the injured party on the pretext of the expenses necessary for the third Deputy Project.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor.