The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding the Defendant was in a position to take over and operate the said crowdfunding prior to entering into a contract on the sales right of the crowdfunding (hereinafter “instant contract”) entered in the facts charged with the victim, and completed the payment of the purchase price of the crowdfunding after entering into the contract with the victim.

In addition, at the time of entering into the instant contract, the victim requested the establishment of the right to collateral security to the land indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant land”) among the various collateral presented by the Defendant’s employees, and the Defendant also responded to the said land by deeming that the value of collateral security exists.

However, the victim did not pay the balance of the agreed contract deposit, and the defendant did not return the deposit received from the victim as he/she had management difficulties in the course of operation of the crowdfunding.

Therefore, it is not the defendant's deception by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while preparing for acquiring the “C” in Seo-gu Daejeon, failed to meet the funds, was willing to grant the victim D the right to sell the cosmetic business located in the cosmetic, with the intent to receive a security deposit.

The Defendant, at the aforementioned crowdfunding, told the victim that “A full acceptance of the said futures hole. A deposit of KRW 300 million will give the right to sell the cosmetic service company. In unstable cases, the market price of KRW 713 square meters in land E is equivalent to KRW 1.3 billion in each state of ownership, and the Defendant would offer and offer a security therefor.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was unable to pay part of the intermediate payment and the balance to F, which is the above provider, and the Defendant did not fully take over the said crowdfunding, and not exceed G, a building owner.