The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is that the instant project failed to run properly is due to the fact that there was a change in circumstances after concluding a contract for vicarious sale of buildings for sale. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant, on March 2015, 2015, performed a new urban living house construction work with the first floor 299 above the ground surface 299 on the 39 pages of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government FF and 39 pages, for the victim E from the car page of the first floor of the building of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

GS Construction contractor performed the responsibility and received a loan of 24 billion won from the KTS investment securities.

In order to deposit KRW 100 million with the sale deposit, it is necessary to enter into a contract with the party and the sale agency.

On June 30, 2015, a false statement was made to the effect that it would completely prepare various business affairs so that the sale in lots can begin until June 2015, and would compensate for the amount of KRW 100 million if the business is not conducted or the contract is ratified until June 30, 2015.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not enter into a formal contract with the investment company or the contractor with respect to the foregoing new construction project, but did not have received a letter of intent to participate in the project, and it did not obtain the approval of the business plan until the time when the Defendant returned the application for approval of the business plan on September 2014 because it failed to secure the ownership itself for the said new construction project site. In addition, the Defendant did not have an intention or ability to compensate the victim for the amount of KRW 100 million, because the Defendant did not have any separate income or property and there was a shortage of business funds.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, obtained the delivery of KRW 100,000 on March 27, 2015 from the damaged person as the sale deposit money, and acquired it by fraud.

B. The judgment of the court below is the construction committee from the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office on June 3, 2013.