The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part of the crime of oil ownership), the Defendant did not enter into an investment agreement with D, E, or other investors to jointly purchase part of the first and second real estate purchased by the Defendant, not with D, E, or other investors, in purchasing the 2,483 square meters of land F in Ansan-si (hereinafter “1 real estate”) and the 3,058 square meters of land in the same Gu G 3,058 square meters (hereinafter “2 real estate”). As such, the Defendant did not notify the acquisition price of the first and second real estate, it cannot be viewed as a deception on the ground that it did not notify.

B) The Defendant’s statement about the development potential of the first real estate to L is based on research service report, newspaper articles, and advice of licensed real estate agents, and thus cannot be deemed to constitute deception in fraud because it cannot be deemed to have been falsely notified to L in a way to the extent of being criticized in light of good faith. In addition, the Defendant did not produce to L a business contract in which KRW 2 million per square year was written to L, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed deception on the ground that the Defendant did not notify L of the purchase price of the first real estate because the Defendant sold the first real estate to L, and the Defendant did not sell the first real estate, and thus, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from L and did not receive it for employment purposes.

2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (the community service order of two years and six months of imprisonment, the suspended sentence of two years, and the 160 hours of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable. The prosecutor 1) under the investment agreement between the Defendant and the victim D, like the real estate of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion), as well as the first real estate of 1) through investment agreement between the Defendant and the victim D, since the victim D purchased a certain portion of the second real estate through the Defendant, the act of the Defendant’s usual value and the payment of the purchase price from the victim D constituted a crime of