The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, at the time of the conclusion of the instant real estate sales contract by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant had the intent and ability to perform the payment that he promised, but the Defendant had not been able to recover the credit of the wife even if he did not repay the arrears, and as such, the Defendant did not perform the obligation because the funds planned by East and East failed to repay the borrowed funds at the time, etc., and there was no intention to commit fraud.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment.

① On December 4, 2013, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s deception by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant was already aware that the credit rating of the wife would decrease at the time of moving into the instant house; (b) there was no specific ground to expect that the credit rating of the wife would have been recovered to the extent that the Defendant would succeed to a large amount of loans worth KRW 8 million due to considerable relocation of the financial institution debt in the name of the wife; (c) the Defendant could not expect the possibility of recovery within 3 months; and (c) the Defendant continued to possess and use the instant house even after the time when it became clear that the succession of the obligation to borrow the instant loan and the preparation of any balance within 3 months was difficult by receiving the instant house from the injured party; and (d) found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges.

B. In full view of the circumstances in the lower court’s judgment as well as the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court and the trial, the intent of the Defendant’s defraudation can be sufficiently recognized in addition to the following circumstances.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that pronounced the defendant guilty.