The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged in this case, the victim G is involved in the crime of this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fact-findingation of 20 million won against the victim G of misunderstanding facts (criminal facts of the case No. 2014Da738 of May 9, 2008 in the original judgment), the Defendant borrowed 20 million won from the victim G on May 9, 2008 and repaid 25 million won including the interest rate of 5 million won on August 1, 2008, since the Defendant deceiving the victim G without any intention or ability to repay, it does not mean that the Defendant deceiving the victim G without any intention or ability to pay the amount of 20 million won by deceiving the victim G.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport of "do not have the intention or ability to return the money even if borrowing the money from the victim G," in Article 2 (2) 3 of the facts charged of the case concerning the fraud of KRW 20 million with the victim G when the judgment of the court was in the first instance, and the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the purport of "do not have the intention or ability to return it within the period of payment which was promised even if borrowing the money from the victim G," and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

B. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal of facts.

Around May 9, 2008, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant had no real estate contract plan at the time, and there was no specific property; and (b) even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim G, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to return the money within the due date for repayment; (c) however, the Defendant had the intent or ability to return it.