The judgment below

The remainder, other than the rejection of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the accused: Error of facts (the accused did not have any intention to acquire it from the beginning because he requested another person to make an appraisal by requesting an appraisal) and unreasonable sentencing;

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the trial of ex officio determination, each of the facts charged in the instant case, “A prosecutor has no intention or ability to undergo an appraisal and assessment,” filed an application for changes in the indictment to mean “A defendant has no intention or ability to undergo an appraisal equivalent to the amount promised to the victim,” and the court permitted changes in the indictment, thereby changing the subject of the trial on this part. As such, the judgment of the court below was eventually impossible to maintain.

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

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the mistake of facts and C's trial statement, even if the defendant received money from the victim C as the expense of appraisal and assessment, even though he did not have the ability to receive an appraisal equivalent to the amount promised by the victim, it is recognized that the defendant did not properly notify such circumstances or received money with the consent of the victim. If the appraisal and assessment failed to proceed as the defendant promised, it should have returned the money received under the initial agreement, but it is recognized that the defendant had the intention of deceiving the victim from the beginning.

This part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, pursuant to Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.