The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is the defendant 2018 High Order 2204 of the judgment of the court below and the High Order 7360 of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the facts and legal principles as delineated below, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though each fraud against the victim D and the victim K cannot be established.

1) In relation to the 2018 Highest 2204 case, the Defendant entered into a sales contract for B apartment E (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) with the victim D, and received money from the victim D as the sale price, and there was no deception by the victim D, and if the apartment sales business that was run by the Defendant had been normally carried out, the Defendant could complete the registration of the transfer of ownership of the instant apartment, and thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire by deception.

The defendant received 2 million won from the victim D on September 25, 2015, which was delivered by the defendant around September 2015, did not have the intention to obtain fraud since the defendant borrowed 2 million won on personal grounds but repaid around January 2016.

2) As to the fraud against the Victim K among the 2018 Highest 7360 cases, the Defendant was actually promoting the instant delivery agency business, used all the funds received from the Victim K for the said business, and did not pay profits to the Victim K because it did not generate profits at the early stage of the business. Therefore, in light of such circumstances, the Defendant by deceiving the Victim K to receive investments.

It is difficult to see it, and there was no intention to commit fraud against the accused.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment and two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor: “The Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court on June 28, 2012 to imprisonment with prison labor for six months and the suspended sentence on July 6, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 6, 2012,” and on April 5, 2013.