The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, on November 20, 2013, received KRW 20 million, not KRW 15 million as the deposit money for the lease on the land and its ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) owned by the L clan from a person who was damaged by the L clan on November 20, 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant received KRW 15 million as the deposit money for the lease on the land and its ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”); and (b) the Defendant received KRW 20 million as the deposit money for the lease on the land and its building owned by the L clan.

However, since the Defendant was granted the right to sublease the instant building from M, a manager of the instant real estate, the Defendant had the ability to lease the said building to the victim.

In addition, the defendant did not set up an internal facility of the building of this case at the end, and the victim decided to install the facility on his own.

Therefore, the defendant acquired the above money by deceiving the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) On November 1, 2013, the Defendant received the victim’s request and stored KRW 10 million in total,00,000 from the victim, and received the victim’s KRW 10,000,000,000 from the victim, and the said money was returned to the victim, and there was no fact that the victim borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the victim as business funds at a monthly interest rate of KRW 400,000.

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

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio the facts charged as to the fraud of KRW 15 million among the facts charged in the instant case at the trial of the party, and applied for amendments to the indictment with the following (the reasons for the new judgment) as stated in paragraph 1 of the facts charged. Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3...