The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Defendant 1 would terminate the first priority collective security right, which was established in the Nam-gu G Forest (hereinafter “forest located within the river”) in the Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter “Yancheon-gu”).

F. The F.I.D. did not deceiving the F.

B. On November 1, 2015, as at the time of the contract for the supply of the farmland on November 1, 2015, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price for the farmland on the ground that the forest located in the river had a sufficient collateral value.

It can not be seen that the victim E (hereinafter “victim E”) was unable to pay some of the price for the purchase of the money, but this was due to management difficulties in the process of performing the project and there was the intention of defraudation.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) Even if the Defendant’s deception and intent are recognized, the land on which the money was supplied by the victimized company is equivalent to KRW 251,793,612 until November 30, 2015. Therefore, the price on which the money was supplied from December 1, 2015 to December 1, 2015 is not supplied due to the instant deception, and thus, the amount of such profit does not exceed KRW 500 million. Therefore, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes does not apply.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant obtained the delivery of money by deceiving the damaged company with the criminal intent of defraudation of salinama and obtained the delivery of money. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1) In order to guarantee the Defendant’s obligation under a land transaction contract with the victimized company on November 1, 2015, the Defendant is limited to 220 million won maximum amount of the claim established as of July 20, 2015 in forest land located within the ceiling.