The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) notified the victim of the fact that the suspension of construction work unilaterally by a construction business operator is delayed in the production of gallon gals of the damaged party, and later, the victim was informed of the progress of the interior construction and the timing of the occupancy. The victim did not commit deception against the victim.

In addition, the construction of the instant building was delayed due to the dispute between the Defendant and the construction business operator due to the delay of interior works, and the delivery of the instant building to the lessor due to the delay in rent. As such, the Defendant could not have anticipated in advance that the construction business operator may suspend construction in violation of the agreement and may interfere with the gallonging business, and thus, there was no negligence in relation to the fraud.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case states that the Defendant “if he enters the gallon, he may introduce many customers to the gallon.” However, the fact that the Defendant’s contract entered with the business entity only includes an agreement on the provision of services with respect to wadr, photo, etc., and there was no circumstance to allow the Defendant to introduce a large number of customers.

Although the first instance court cited the victim in the above manner, the first instance court deceivings the victim by the above method.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged ex officio.

Therefore, the above facts are examined based on the revised criminal facts.

The Defendant is a representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) that mainly engages in business, such as lending of crowdfunding, and is a person who exercises overall control over the business, finance, etc. of the said company.

The Defendant, by the year of 2013, has been running a brokerage shop, such as the lending of crowdfunding, as its main business, but its business has deteriorated.