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 is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding out that the defendant was paid land proceeds from the victim by deceiving the victim without the intention to transfer ownership, although the defendant did not want to receive land proceeds from the victim by deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

A. On November 29, 2012, the Defendant issued a false statement to the victim F, who wishes to purchase part of 123 square meters of the land E in Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, the father of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the Defendant’s operation, located in Haan-gun, Haan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Haan-gun, in order to purchase the instant real estate, that the Defendant would transfer the ownership of the instant real estate necessary to purchase the instant real estate by succeeding to the relevant contract the amount of KRW 15 million of the additional amount (25 million of the land price) to the victim F.

However, in fact, the Defendant did not prepare a sales contract for the transfer of ownership with the victim, but did not intend to transfer ownership even if he/she received the payment from the victim, on the basis of the fact that the content of the promise to use the site was written at the time (written consent).

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 15 million won from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant for land payment.

B. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, that is, the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant: (a) the instant real estate, which is merely a market price of 4 million square meters wide; and (b) the Defendant received KRW 30 million in total from the three buyers, using the fact that it is essential to be an access road to the construction site; and (c) the Defendant received KRW 5 million from H, instead of deducting the purchase price from the purchase price.