The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the Defendant was invested KRW 85 million from the damaged party to the land development project jointly promoted by the Defendant and H, and was paid the intermediate payment with the money sold in installments at the time. However, the fact that the problem of securing the actual entry was not resolved and the intermediate payment was not returned to the victim because it was merely a failure to return the money invested to the victim. Thus, the Defendant had the intention to commit fraud.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant before determining ex officio.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the trial court, the defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for embezzlement, etc. at the Seoul High Court on August 27, 2009 and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 12, 2009.

Therefore, the crime of embezzlement and the crime of embezzlement in the judgment of the court below against the defendant in which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive is in a concurrent crime relationship with the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for the crime in the judgment of the court below in consideration of equity in the case of concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39 (1) of the Criminal

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined in the following paragraphs, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

3. The defendant and the defense counsel of the court below have the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below stated the "a summary of evidence" in detail below's argument and its judgment in detail.