The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant was unable to make a coffee store in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan J building leased by the victim, the Defendant was unable to do so, and at the time of the contract, D (hereinafter “instant company”) was in serious financial difficulties or difficult to operate, and some of the money received from the victim was disbursed for the interior work of the victim, and the remainder was not executed as a matter of the above problem, and was used as company operation expenses or construction expenses for another franchise store in accordance with the business judgment. Thus, the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to acquire money from the victim as the name of the contract price.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two-month imprisonment, two-year suspension of execution, two-year probation, and community service order 120 hours) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. On September 27, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to five months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Incheon District Court for fraud, and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 20, 2013.

On June 1, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant will complete the construction work within two months of a week by completing the payment for the construction work by drawing the F coffee shop to the victim E at the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.”

However, in fact, the Defendant received money from the victim at the risk of de facto suspension of business due to the failure of the employees to contact with the employees due to the delayed payment of the staff, rent, communications fee, etc. at that time, and accordingly, he thought that such money will be used for living expenses, such as company operation expenses, food, and oil expenses, so even if receiving construction payment, the Defendant is the victim.