The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant with the money of KRW 25 million from the injured party, even though the Defendant did not have the ability to perform the new construction of the apartment, in view of the fact that the Defendant received money from the injured party while there was a large number of criminal records of the same kind, and that the Defendant had reached an agreement with the injured party, but the amount actually not repaid is heavy.

However, the court below's punishment is somewhat unreasonable if there are changes in the circumstances in which the defendant paid additional 5 million won to the victim when the defendant was in the first instance trial, and other circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, are considered together.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is again decided as follows.

[Re-written judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the facts stated in each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act on the selection of punishment (as a whole) and Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act on the grounds for sentencing of imprisonment with prison labor, as well as the reasons for sentencing of sentence (i.e., 145 million won out of total damages (i., 200 million won - 3 million won paid before the judgment of the original court - 5 million won paid in the first instance court -) and the amount of damage is considerable in light of only the amount of non-payment as above, and (ii) the defendant asserts that there is no problem in recovering damage by setting up a right to collateral security, but it was not submitted data on whether the amount of damage will be fully repaid with the real estate (1438.4 square meters in Gyeongbuk Nan case) on which the right to collateral security was set up.