The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The Defendant entered into a sales contract for H-owned land of the Dong-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) with H-owned, verbally or implicitly, the gist of the grounds for appeal.

Even if the conclusion of the contract was not reached until the completion of the contract, the Defendant and H had a significant progress in negotiations to the extent that the contract was actually concluded. Therefore, the Defendant considered that the Defendant had secured the status of purchaser, and concluded the contract for the instant land with the victim as stated in the facts charged, and did not have the intention of deception.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with one year and six months for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) at the Busan High Court on May 26, 2016 and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 3, 2016. Thus, the crime of the court below and the above crime of the defendant, which became final and conclusive in the judgment of the court below, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime of the court below in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is rendered at the same time under Article 39(1)

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) comprehensively based on various evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; and (b) based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.