The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts about fraud and misunderstanding the legal principles, when concluding an agreement with the victim F to take over the business with the victim, the defendant notified the victim of all the facts against the victim in the building name lawsuit and the facts that some of the facilities in the factory have been provisionally attached. Thus, the defendant deceiving the victim or has the criminal intent to defraud the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts about the Defendant’s fraud, namely, the acquisition of the business, and Article 3 of the Agreement on the Transfer of Business and the Performance of Business, promises that there was no fact of the establishment of claims, provisional seizure, mortgage, etc. for all facilities within

The following facts are stated: “The victim is believed to believe the content of the above agreement as it is and paid the price. Unlike the content of the agreement, the victim stated to the effect that there was a provisional attachment to some facilities in the factory, and the defendant was accused from the defendant, the defendant had to order the factory in a lawsuit against the name of the factory that was already raised by the owner of the factory at the time of the agreement on the acquisition of the business with the victim, and the defendant did not talk to the victim regarding the fact that the factory name was lost

In full view of the fact that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, deceiving the victim and obtained a delivery of KRW 16,500,000 as the sales price for the factory, can be recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. We also examine the criminal defendant and prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing.

Each of the crimes of this case shall be obtained by deceiving a person, and shall be obtained.