The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the facts charged in the case No. 73 of the 2015 Go-Ba case No. 73 of the judgment of the court below are insufficient to prove the criminal intent by defraudation, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the owner of the C building in Namyang-si.

The defendant, around February 6, 2013, planned to operate rain rains on the 7th floor of the building" to the victim D and E in the sale office of the above building, and obtained permission from the competent administrative agency, so there is no problem in the opening of the building around May 2013.

The purpose of this study is to propose to the effect that “The security deposit shall be paid to lease the store space in a spawn and in a spawn.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not request the competent administrative agency to permit or permit, and even if he received the deposit from the victims, he did not have any intention or ability to lease the store space according to the agreement, because the defendant did not request the competent administrative agency to permit or permit.

Accordingly, as seen earlier, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victims; (b) received KRW 16 million from the victims under the same day as the deposit money; (c) KRW 24 million around February 28, 2013; (d) KRW 20 million around April 1, 2013; (c) KRW 4 million around April 2, 2013; (d) KRW 8 million around April 29, 2013; and (e) received KRW 80 million in total, including KRW 8 million around April 30, 2013; and (e) KRW 8 million around April 30, 2013.

B. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the lower court determined that the Defendant was paid KRW 80 million under the name of deposit by deceiving the victim D and E as if it was uncertain that the Defendant’s opening of the deceased Mana around February 6, 2013 around May 2013 was not clear, but as the deceased Mana would be opened without any problem on May 2013.

On the other hand, this part of the charges was found guilty.

(c)

(1) the review.