The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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, by the end of February 2017, did not know that there was no possibility for the instant new technology project to be implemented by the end of February, 2017. In addition, there was no explanation that the instant new technology project was implemented in early 2017, and the Defendant did not have an explanation that the said project was finalized against the victim. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case inasmuch as there was no room to acknowledge the Defendant’s deception, the lower court erred

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant argued to the same effect as otherwise alleged in the above facts, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and acquired money from

If the above evidence is examined closely with the records of this case, it is just that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of the circumstances as stated in its holding, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing was committed by the Defendant by deceiving the victim to the effect that the Defendant would repay the borrowed money as compensation for the land of the new project, and the nature of the crime was inferior in light of the amount of damage, etc., and the Defendant denied the instant crime. However, there was no record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant was in the heart of the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment.