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 by defense counsel;

A. In order for the Defendant to perform the obligation to register the transfer of ownership under a contract to sell the land, such as E (hereinafter “the instant land”) to the victim D (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), the injured party shall perform the obligation to pay the remainder, and the injured party shall complete a completion inspection and complete subdivision registration in order to pay the remainder. The Defendant requested the victim to construct a house on the instant land sold in lots for nine years and run a subdivision procedure, but the Defendant requested the victim to pay the remainder, but the Defendant failed to perform it. The Defendant and the victim were released from the present sales contract on September 1, 2015 according to the letter of commitment prepared by the Defendant and the victim, and the Defendant does not constitute a person who administers another’s business because the obligation to register the transfer of ownership on the instant land did not occur.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that there is no history of punishment exceeding the fine, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles does not constitute a person who administers another person's business, as long as the victim has not yet paid the balance to the defendant, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant was on November 9, 2005.