The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and for a crime of No. 2 of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was not a party to a contract for construction with E, and was not obligated to pay the construction cost to the said company. The Defendant explained to F the situation of H and I land (hereinafter “instant land”) at both weeks, and F lent the interest and incidental expenses of the instant land as a result of his own decision, and there was no fact that the Defendant deceiving F.

B. The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant (4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 1 of the lower judgment, and 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

2. On July 19, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to six years of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of imprisonment with prison labor from the Suwon Giwon, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 12, 2018.

The above crime of fraud against the defendant, for which the judgment of the court below has become final and conclusive, is in a concurrent crime relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and in accordance with the main sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act, a punishment shall be imposed on the crime of the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously. Therefore

3. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is subject to deliberation on the ground that the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts was based on the above ex officio reversal, and this is examined.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victim F by deceiving the victim F as stated in the judgment below, so this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

1) On April 17, 2008, concluded between the Defendant and E (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”), the standard contract for the private construction works entered into between the Defendant and the contractor is merely written as “N religious assembly and the president of the General Assembly of Religious Organizations A” and the representative of the General Assembly of Religious Organizations.