The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

The prosecutor of the summary of the grounds for appeal (with respect to the portion not guilty in the judgment below), the court below, on March 15, 2010, received a total of KRW 25 million from the injured party, including a total of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 from the attorney-at-law, and returned to the injured party on March 17, 2010, and on the same day, it is difficult to recognize the charges of fraud regarding KRW 10,000 returned to the accused on the ground that the injured party appointed the attorney-at-law with the said money.

Recognizing this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

The punishment (one year and six months, etc.) imposed on the defendant by the court below is too unreasonable.

The summary of this part of the facts charged against the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

3. Around 15. Around the 15.m., the victim called F by telephone to the victim who was making it difficult for F to be victimized by the fraud, “I wish to have an attorney-at-law who knows well, to resolve the fraud of F, and to request F to do so.

In order to appoint an attorney-at-law, it is necessary to pay a fee of KRW 20 million.

In order to send the attorney's fee of KRW 20 million, it was false to the effect that it would bring about a fraud to F by requesting it to the latter.

However, as above, there was no income or property of the defendant, and the defendant did not pay the appointment fee on behalf of the victim, and since the money received from the victim was lent to G or was thought to be used for repayment of personal debt, there was no intention or ability to use or repay the money as agreed upon by the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 20 million won on the same day under the pretext of attorney fees from the female, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.