The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crime of No. 1 through No. 3 of the judgment of the defendant, the crime of No. 4 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the judgment of the court below (the crime of paragraphs 1 through 3 at the time of sale: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The form of the lower judgment by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Although there is a change in the judgment on the grounds of appeal that the defendant actually attempted to construct a new building, it was impossible for the defendant to actually perform the construction of a new building because there is almost no money that can be prepared by his own means. Nevertheless, such fact was hidden and acquired money from the victims several times. In particular, even after being sentenced to a suspended sentence due to the same crime, the crime of fraud was committed against the victim M, and that the sum of the acquired money of this case reaches approximately KRW 100 million is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the victims did not confirm the possibility of the implementation of the new construction of this case and paid the defendant's words in trust and frush money without properly confirming the possibility of the execution of the new construction of this case; the defendant paid the victim D KRW 15 million and 5 million to the victim M after the decision of the court below was made; the defendant promised to pay the remaining money to the victims KRW 5 million per month or KRW 2 million per annum; the defendant paid the victims with the agreed money up to October 2013 under the above agreement, and the damage recovery was made; the victims complained against the defendant for the payment of damages; the victims complained against the defendant's mistake; and considering various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case such as the motive, method, criminal act, circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age and character, occupation, etc., the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, and thus it is too unreasonable to recognize the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.

3. Conclusion