The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, before receiving the money from the victims, had been in progress with the loan construction project by purchasing the H site in Jeju-si (hereinafter “the instant site”) prior to the receipt of the money, and had conditions to the extent that the victims can be granted the right to sell the loan to the victims on the ground of the instant site on January 2010.

There is no fact that the defendant was the owner of the instant site to the victims or the purchase of the said site alone that China would be granted permanent residence rights.

After sufficient review, the victims have invested most of the investments of the victims in the business of the defendant, and the defendant has actually used them to carry out the above business.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant did not have the same criminal record as the defendant alleged unfair sentencing, the defendant paid 30 million won to the victim F, 170 million won to the victim G through I, and the defendant made his best efforts to have the business of this case, punishment of the court below (two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Under the facts charged at the trial of the prosecutor, the defendant " at the office of corporation E in which the defendant is the representative of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 1412 on January 10, 2015, the victim F and G "new house of 84 bonds at Jeju City H and sell high-class loans to Chinese people, and if purchasing the land, the Chinese people can reside in Korea.

In this regard, this government made a false statement to the effect that this government will grant the right to sell the loan on its face to the owner of H land and pay the total amount of KRW 9 billion to the owner of the loan.

However, in fact, even if the defendant receives money from the victims in the absence of the purchase of the site for the loan at the time, he purchased the site and borrows it.