The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to start a coffee shop, by deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving him a total of 34.6 million won.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to start a coffee shop, or that the Defendant was a criminal intent to defraud the Defendant, without any reasonable doubt, was proven.

For the reason that it cannot be said, the court rendered a verdict of innocence on the facts charged in the name of a coffee shop start-up.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 34.6 million from the injured party, as in the table of the start-up fund of the affiliated coffee shop.

The Defendant started a coffee shop by entering into a commercial lease agreement in this money.

At the time, the husband of the defendant was engaged in the business related to the interior test (distribution of floor height board).

According to the victim's statement in the investigation agency, the victim thought that at the time the victim should open the coffee shop in order to hold the actual coffee shop, the amount of KRW 50,000,000, and also the defendant and the victim have expressed about the coffee shop shop loan.

At the time, the victim was aware of the fact that the defendant is economically difficult.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court deceivings the victim under the pretext that the Defendant uses it as a coffee shop start-up fund as stated in this part of the facts charged.