The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case due to mistake of fact, although the Defendant was found to have obtained money by deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor tried to examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio, and at the time of the trial of the prosecution, the two-thirds of the facts charged “is operating two teams in the future, but at the time of investment of KRW 6 million, KRW 200,000 per day.

The phrase "A part" is operated for the future 2 Egyms in the Ma site, and if an investment of 6 million won is made, a maximum of 200,000 won per day and 6 million won shall be returned upon the termination of the lease contract.

The term "ro, No. 5-6 conduct" has no intention or ability to normally operate a marina shop even if he/she receives investment from the injured party.

Even if he/she receives an investment from the injured party, he/she does not have an intention or ability to normally operate the workplace or return 6 million won.

The judgment of the court below is no longer maintained since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court after filing an application for changes to the contents of the judgment.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court. However, since this part of the facts charged was modified as follows, it is intended to determine whether the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts based on the modified facts charged is justifiable.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. After amendment, the Defendant presented a false real estate lease agreement to the victim E at the D coffee shop located near Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C on February 26, 2015, and “No. 200,000 won per day if he/she invested KRW 6 million.”