The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the fact, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as if he received KRW 600 million for the forest owned by the clans, and even if it is evident that the discussion on the sale of the forest and field began only after the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party.

In addition, at the time of borrowing money from the injured party, the injured party had the ability and intent to repay the commercial building at the time of the borrowing of money, and the injured party who had maintained a close relationship with the accused has voluntarily lent money for the purpose of obtaining interest income by reliance on the above Defendant’s financial ability to repay the money. As such, in the process, the deceiving of the accused was involved or the intent of the defrauded was committed

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine of fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the criminal defendant was not subject to criminal punishment, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced one year and six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as to the compensation amount of 85,954 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) of the wife population G G 85,954 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) as well as did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation as the Defendant did not intend to commit the crime of deception at the time of borrowing the money.

The court below asserted that ① the victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below that the Defendant trustedly and trusted the money as stated in the facts charged, and ② the Defendant’s statement about the compensation for the forest of this case in the court of the court below was made after 2012, which is the Defendant’s two sides, after the loan.