The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) When concluding a construction contract with the victim E, the Defendant agreed to pay the construction cost on the condition that the Defendant would obtain bank loans after the completion of the construction of the building under the consent of the victim. In this regard, there was no deception by the victim. Since the Defendant failed to pay the construction cost of the victim because the bank loans as much as the amount the Defendant thought was not implemented after the conclusion of the contract, there was no intention of deception.

2) As to the fraud against the victim H, the Defendant would pay the construction cost if the Defendant obtained a bank loan from the victim.

It is only promised that the victim should pay the remaining construction cost of KRW 13 million at the time of completion of the construction as the down payment to the victim, such as this part of the charges.

There is no deception, and considering the appraised value, etc. of the land AB and three lots of land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant, there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud by the Defendant.

shall not be effective.

3) As to the fraud against the victim I, the defendant will take over the collateral security obligation of KRW 300 million.

There is no deception of the injured party, and on March 31, 2014, the real estate sale contract prepared with the injured party was written in writing on March 31, 2015, which is written as the date of payment of the balance, and considering the economic value of the company's property and the sales and operating profits of the above company, the accused did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation because he/she had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money from the injured party until March 31, 2015.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal doctrine, is the defendant.