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 becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fraud (1) against the victim E (the second half of 2014, the second half of 5048) committed fraud against the victim E (the victim E (the second half of 2014, the second half of 5048) by arbitrarily releasing a provisional attachment against the F (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of loyalty, and there was no fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, made a false statement as if the payment of the construction cost was made to the victim E, and requested a release of provisional attachment.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim E and did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

(2) Fraud against the victim J (2014 highest 7829) was a fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim J, but only lent it to the victim J.

The defendant received additional KRW 30 million from the victimJ in relation to the right to remodel a charnel project, but the defendant was willing and ability to grant the victim E the right to remodel a charnel project as the actual operator of H as the foundation corporation.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victimJ and did not have the intention to commit fraud.

(3) Fraud against the victimO (2014 high group 9296) sought sufficient understanding of the temporary financial difficulties at the time of receiving money from the victimO, and had the intent and ability to make changes.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim'sO and did not have the intention to commit fraud.

B) The Defendant was the actual operator of H, a foundation corporation, with the authority to submit a document under the name of the president, inasmuch as the part concerning the forgery of a private document and the exercise of the above investigation document was subject to comprehensive delegation of L, a director with the power of representation in the registry, and was in overall in the operation of the foundation.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. On the grounds for ex officio appeal.