The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts was proceeding with the construction of the instant building, and the sales contract concluded with the victim was performed normally, but it was difficult to prevent the registration of ownership transfer to the victim as a result of the occurrence of a dispute over access roads and the occurrence of a financial problem. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had criminal intent to acquire the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a case where the accused denies the criminal intent of defraudation, the facts constituting the subjective element of such crime are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the criminal intent due to the nature of the things given the nature of the things. In this case, what constitutes indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the facts based on the detailed observation or analysis capabilities based on normal empirical rule.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006).

Examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, at least dolusently, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had a criminal intent to acquire 200 million won in the sale price.

1) The Defendant, the representative director of the Co., Ltd. C, is the Defendant, on the ground B (hereinafter “instant building”).

A) A new construction of a new project and the sale of the new project from August 2016 (hereinafter “instant project”).

(2) The Defendant was proceeding on September 2016.