All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Nos. 1 through 3 of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant had no intention to commit a crime by deceiving the victim M by deceiving him, the second instance court convicted him of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in the judgment of the second instance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant sentencing case, the lower court’s punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, additional collection, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the appeal cases against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 and examine them together, and each offense in the judgment of the court of first instance and each offense in the judgment of the court of second instance in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be exempted

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, however, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

As long as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not a confession by the defendant, it shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do12, Oct. 14, 2005). The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention but a willful negligence.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant was not a landowner at the time of receiving a lease agreement from the victim M, and even if the land was not specified in the contract, the said victim was not specified.