The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following circumstances, in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts), there was a criminal intent of deceiving or deceiving the victims.

It can not be seen, and the amount of damage does not amount to KRW 4.75 billion as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

A. The Defendant purchased a special golf membership (hereinafter referred to as “instant membership”) in the liquor of the F golf course from Ansan-si with the approval of the review of the recruitment of the members of the F golf course (hereinafter referred to as “instant golf course”). The Defendant sold it to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”) operated by the Defendant and the I clan (hereinafter referred to as “instant dispute”) holding the land of not less than 51,901 square meters and the land of not less than 1,983 square meters and the financial standing of G, which are part of the prospective site of the instant golf course, are published by the electronic public disclosure system of the Financial Supervisory Service, so there was no fact that the Defendant enticed the victims in recruiting the members of the instant golf course.

B. The Defendant’s sale of membership in the instant golf course was an inevitable managerial judgment that led to the instant golf course’s managerial difficulties and continued to operate the business.

(c)

At the time of the sale of membership in the instant case, G’s assets were sufficient, and the Defendant used the purchase price of membership in the instant case for the purpose of operating the instant golf course, including the return of the deposit money of the existing regular members, instead of privately using the purchase price of membership in the instant case.

(d)

The clan of this case had the intent to sell the land in dispute to the Defendant, but it did not acquire the land in dispute because there was only disagreement on the purchase price, so the Defendant did not acquire the land in dispute.