The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the victim of KRW 20 million.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case, on October 8, 2013, the Defendant agreed with the victimized company to jointly develop a total of seven lots of forest land, such as Ilyang-dong E, Busan-dong, F, G, H, I, J land, and K-owned L land, which is operated by C on October 8, 2013, into a factory site, and the Defendant agreed with the victimized company to jointly settle all the expenses related to the authorization and permission work of factory establishment at the time when the Defendant first assumed the expenses for the loans using the above factory site as collateral.

On September 9, 2013, the Defendant obtained approval for the construction of a new factory from Goyang-si on the said factory site, and thereafter requested C to pay KRW 13 million to C for the expenses of authorization and permission, and the Defendant paid KRW 20 million toM for the expenses of construction design. As such, the Defendant made a false statement that “The settlement of the said expenses is changed.”

However, the defendant only entered into a construction design contract with M and did not receive design services from M.

On October 14, 2013, the Defendant deceiving C as such, and caused C to be transferred KRW 20 million, which is owned by the victimized company, as a cost for building design.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not pay the down payment, on the ground that it was true that the victim paid the amount to the Defendant, and that the Defendant concluded a design service contract with M, even though the Defendant merely presented the written contract only to the victim and did not present materials proving that the actual amount was paid, such as financial transaction details and receipts

Even if the defendant did not intend to pay the design service cost in M, the defendant and the victim of the contract entered into with M on November 28, 2013 shall be subject to the rights and obligations of the defendant.