The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the crime of fraud against the victim C by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim C or suffered damage by the victim C.

Since the victim C brought part of 600 straws which completed the taking work, it should be deducted from the amount of fraud.

In relation to the theft crime against the victim H, the defendant requested the victim H to release the thief, and the victim H contacted M to the M, thereby opening a warehouse to open the warehouse, and thus, the defendant was released from the facility. Therefore, theft cannot be established.

In addition, the user fee of the Dongdaemun-gu that the defendant paid for the victim H, the work cost of even attitude, the warehouse leasing cost, etc. should be deducted from the amount of damage to the victim H.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) We examine the crime of fraud against the victim C.

The defendant acknowledged the crime of fraud against the victim C in the court below, but is dissatisfied with it in the appellate court.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, although the defendant did not have the intent and ability to jointly purchase, the defendant made a false statement as to the above, and caused C to pay the purchase price and the installment cost if C knew of such fact.

Therefore, the defendant's deception and the victim C's damage caused thereby are recognized.

2) We examine the theft crime against victim H.

Although the Defendant reversed the existing statement on the six-time trial date of the lower court, it is difficult to see that the Defendant brought a yellow negligence upon the victim H’s request for delivery, as the lower court properly states, (a) the Defendant is in accord with the Defendant’s assertion in the appellate trial.