The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of receiving the original cost indicated in the facts charged from the injured party, the accused had the intent and ability to supply the original cost to the injured party, and thus, the accused is not recognized to have the criminal intent to commit fraud, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby convicting the accused of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On December 11, 2015, the Defendant would supply the Victim E with the “C,50 gate 3,500 gate” at the “D Job Referral located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C, Seoul. C. 8. Around December 11, 2015.

Down payment of KRW 3,00,000 is paid first, first, it will be supplied 500 kings, and the remaining 3,000 kings will be supplied by means of payment and redemption until July 2016.

“.....”

However, the defendant did not have the original team at the time, and there was no intention or ability to supply the original team to the victim as agreed.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) delivered KRW 3,000,000 to the national bank account under F on January 29, 2016 as the down payment from the person who is affiliated therewith; and (c) delivered the said account under the name of F on January 29, 201; and (d)

7.1 November 1, 200,000 won, and the same year.

8. 2,00,000 won around November 11, 200

8. 22. Around 22. Around 1500,000 won was received respectively and the total amount of KRW 8,500,000 was acquired by deception.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the evidence at the time of the lower judgment.

(c)

The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original judgment and the trial court, namely, the victim purchased K with K the adex dex dex dex dex dex dex dex dex dex dex dex dex supplied through the Defendant. However, from October 2014, the victim deposited the original amount into the account in the name of F used by the Defendant and received directly from the Defendant.