The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant merely thought that he would use the investment money as the fund for the operation of the company, and that he acquired the investment money by deceiving the victim even though he did not have the intent and ability to use it in the real estate business and its ancillary business related to the F Group (hereinafter “instant business”).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the appellate court as well as the evidence duly examined and adopted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the registration of voluntary decision of commencement of auction was completed on March 25, 2009 with respect to the land of Chuncheon U.S. owned by the F Group (hereinafter “F Group”) and that on September 16, 2009, the ownership was transferred to J on October 14, 2009 under its name.

Therefore, around September 23, 2009, when the defendant received the investment from the damaged party, it seems that the progress of the project in this case was practically impossible by receiving the land of the F Group from the third party.

The defendant's assertion that negotiations have been finally concluded because of the narrow support of differences in opinion around November 2009 while continuing negotiations on F Group and the selling price, etc. of land is difficult to believe as they are.

The Defendant used the investment money for other purposes, such as the Company Operation Fund.

The financial investment plan prepared by the defendant under the agreement with the victim on the return of profit with the receipt of investment money is limited to the investment in the project of this case.

Unlike the express text of such a disposition document, the injured party allowed the Defendant to use the investment for any other purpose, such as the Defendant’s Company’s operating funds, or was primarily interested in the profits rather than the volume of the investment funds.

There is no fluorous circumstance.

The fact that the injured was an employee of the planning real estate company operated by the defendant.