The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) It is true that the Defendant received a total of KRW 90 million from the victim B (hereinafter “victim”) as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, as stated in the lower judgment.

However, among the above money, KRW 60 million, excluding KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 from October 27, 2016, the Defendant may be awarded a subcontract to the J Hotel in Jeju, Jeju (hereinafter “the instant Human Estate Corporation”).

Since trust and investment has been made as a deposit money, in consideration of the down payment, profit, etc. anticipated to be received through the above subcontract, it was not possible to recognize that the above principal and profit cannot be returned to the victim, and since it was used as the down payment, company operation fund, etc. required for the interior work of this case with the consent of the injured party thereafter, there was no intention to acquire it.

In addition, on October 27, 2016, KRW 30 million was invested by the Defendant with respect to “U” located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, which is operated by the Defendant, and is not granted with respect to the instant interior works as stated in the facts charged. The said money as the victim testified in the court of original instance shall be deemed as the money lent to the Defendant by I, not the victim, as the victim testified in the court of original instance. Thus, it shall not be deemed that the money acquired by the Defendant by deceiving the victim is the money that the victim acquired.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant deceivings the victim to borrow the above money for the purpose of interior works. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The Defendant borrowed 13 million won as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below from the victim E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) to the victim E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) but the Defendant borrowed money from B as stated in the above 1).