The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the part that stated that (i) among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, (ii) Section 2, Section 11, “No intention to transfer the ownership of the above commercial building 101,” was changed in the indictment at the court below, and thus deleted from the facts charged, the court below erred by recognizing the deleted part as the facts constituting the crime

Luxembourg’s preparation of the sales contract for the instant commercial building 101 by the victim constitutes a reservation to return substitute goods. Since it is apparent that the value at the time of the agreement to return substitute goods of the instant commercial building 101 exceeds the sum of the borrowed money to the victim and the interest thereon, it is null and void as it violates Article 608 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, in order for the defendant to transfer the ownership of 101 commercial buildings of this case to the victim, the liquidation procedure is required, and the victim demanded to transfer the ownership unilaterally without such liquidation procedure, and thus the defendant did not comply with it. Therefore, the defendant did not transfer the ownership of 101 commercial buildings of this case.

It shall not be deemed that there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the accused.

B. (1) When the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant had sufficient collateral assets, and was expected to receive the remainder of the sale price of the commercial building 102,00,000 won, and it was anticipated that the Defendant would be able to repay the borrowed money of the victim sufficiently.

After that, the sales contract for commercial buildings in 102 was terminated, so it was impossible to receive the balance of the sales price, and the sales price of the building in this case did not proceed as expected, and only the defendant's property was unable to pay the borrowed money to the victim for reasons such as selling it at the intermittent value.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a criminal intent to commit deception or fraud against the defendant.

Dor, the defendant borrowed money from the victim, and bonds to the victim.