The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment and nine hundred and fifty million won of collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) With respect to the 5 million won fraud portion found not guilty by the lower court, the lower court pointed out that the victim of the above part was L, not E, and considered insufficient proof of the facts charged, but the prosecutor changed the indictment to L with the content of changing the victim to L, and thus, this part of the indictment must be found guilty. 2) The sentencing of the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

2. In relation to the 5 million won fraud portion which the court below acquitted, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to which the victim was not guilty, and this court permitted the amendment, and the remaining facts charged should be sentenced to one punishment in relation to the substantive concurrent crimes with the modified facts charged. Thus, the court below's judgment cannot be exempted from the whole reversal.

3. In conclusion, the court below's decision is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who performs a funeral work with the position of the president of Daejeon Branch.

On June 201, the Defendant came to know of the Defendant’s birth to the Defendant’s birth in the vicinity of the mountain, mountain, and mountain, and came to know of the Victim E who operates D. The Defendant sought from the said victim that “F attorney was appointed on the wind that the main building of the said D was destroyed by fire, but does not require a building permit on the ground that it was an unauthorized building, and the Defendant tried to purchase the site from the site owner.”

The author argues that he knows that he well-knowns the legal personnel of the legal profession, solves the above D problem, and receives money as security and cost, and the above victim receives money.