The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have goods equivalent to KRW 200 million against victim E.

There is no fact of deceiving the existence of deposit or deposit for deposit, and even if there was a deception, the victim was aware of the economic financial capacity of the defendant, not a dispositive act by mistake, and the defendant agreed to transfer the store of the defendant's operation to the victim by receiving money from the victim on November 30, 201. The premium of the above store exceeds the amount received from the victim in the amount of KRW 180 million and actually intended to transfer the store of this case, so there was no criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) deceiving the victim as if the Defendant had the intention of repayment or ability to repay, thereby deceiving the victim of KRW 29,175,00 on October 31, 201; and (b) deceiving the victim of KRW 36,100,000 on July 13, 201.

On October 31, 2011, the Defendant stated in the facts charged in the instant case that, in addition to the aforementioned statement, the Defendant stated that “the Defendant would repay a loan by no later than December 7, 201 if the payment for the settlement of the current bill is required” to the victim on October 31, 201, the Defendant stated that “in addition to the aforementioned statement, there is sufficient collateral for the victim, such as the deposit for deposit of deposits with the head office, the deposit of KRW 50 million, the deposit for deposit of deposits with the head office, the deposit of KRW 50 million, and the deposit of KRW 50 million, so it may not be known about the recovery of claims,” and that the victim’s statement at the lower court court court is consistent therewith.

However, in the police around October 31, 201, the victim is provided with the check of the number of shares in the police, and there are other stories.