The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The judgment below

The part of the compensation order shall be revoked.

The court below's applicant for compensation.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant did not directly explain to the victim the land as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant land”) or prepare a written contract.

Along with the fact that the right to collateral security was established on the land of this case, since the possibility of a rise in the price of the land of this case was believed to H and G by hearing an explanation and making a written statement to the victim.

In addition, there was an intention and ability to re-purchase the land of this case as stated in the note.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime by deception.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is that the victim, who had no intent to purchase the instant land, stated that “if the price of the instant land is not less than three to five times the price of the instant land within 3 to 4 years, she shall throw away the land within 3 to 5 times the price of the instant land,” and received KRW 28 million as the purchase price for the land from the victim.

Therefore, regardless of whether the Defendant directly explained the instant land to the victim, whether the Defendant directly prepared the written contract, whether the fact that the right to collateral security was established on the instant land was unaware of the fact, or whether the Defendant believed to have believed the rise in the price of the instant land, if it is recognized that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repurchase the instant land, it is difficult to exempt the Defendant from the liability for the crime of fraud (the Defendant also refers to the indirect circumstance that denies the criminal intent to purchase the instant land). Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant did not have any intent to repurchase the instant land.

① The Defendant: (i) KRW 1850,000 at the time of the victim (i.e., KRW 56,000 per square meter of the individual published land as of July 1, 201) x 56,000 won.