The judgment below

The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of fraud is acquitted. Of the judgment below.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of a mistake of facts as to the fraud, the Defendant, through L and M, by deceiving the victimO as if the sale of the construction project of the main complex building (hereinafter “instant new construction project”) was completed within six months from L and M, and thereby allowing the victim to set up a collateral security on the victim’s land for the debt amounting to KRW 150 million against L and M’s N.

According to this, the defendant could be seen as deceiving the victim by using L or M, and he can be seen as acquiring property benefits equivalent to the above value of the collateral from the victim, and at least the defendant can be seen as acquiring money from L or M or obtaining security from the victim.

However, since the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, the court below erred in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, one hundred and twenty hours of community service, and forty hours of compliance driving lectures) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor changed the applicable provisions of law to “Article 347(1) and Article 34(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act,” and applied for changes in the indictment as stated below, and the court applied for changes in the indictment to which the facts charged are stated below. Since the subject of the judgment is changed, the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, this part of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still within the scope related to the changed facts charged.