The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

On April 15, 2011, the Defendant sold each of the instant real estate, including the instant site and the instant housing owned by the Defendant to the victims. Of the instant land, the Defendant was used as a current state of approximately 65 square meters, and on the cadastral map that passes after the instant housing, the neighboring resident I lost the function of the said road on the road on which he left a warehouse, and there was no plan to close the said road or restore the said road on the cadastral map in the west-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun.

In this regard, the defendant can close the front of the house, since there is a legal system in the cadastral map to the back of the house, and the building I owned by the defendant has a legal road restoration plan in the Taean-gun.

“A false statement,” and there was a fact in the past that the Defendant submitted to the Thai-Gun Office of Thai-do a letter of confirmation stating that “The current situation is recognized as being, as it has been formed in the village (contested in the instant site) within the instant site, all civil and criminal responsibilities due to the closure of the road and the occurrence of inconvenience and civil petitions by the residents are identified as being in the principal.” Even though the victims did not notify the victims of the fact, the victims may close the current situation at any time.

In good faith, the defendant concluded a real estate sales contract with the defendant.

The defendant, from the victims, 20 million won as contract deposit for the same day, and the same year.

6.9. The remainder of this year received 150 million won from each other and acquired it by fraud under the pretext of the balance.

2. The lower court, based on the following circumstances, found that the Defendant could recognize the fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Based on the judgment of the court, the charges were convicted.

(1) The Defendant purchased each of the instant land on June 28, 2005 and purchased it on July 8, 2005.