The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, the victim deposited money with the Defendant, etc. as a trustor around June 24, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) with the Defendant, etc. on or around June 24, 2014, the victim deposited money with the purchase price for the instant land regardless of the instant soil and rock gathering business, and thus, there is no relationship with the Defendant’s deception.

The domestic deposit of this case is related to the activities of collecting earth and stone of this case.

Even if the victim voluntarily deposited the money invested by himself/herself for the purpose of preserving the money by not later than the time when the victim did not trust the horses of the defendant related to the collection of earth and rocks, so the victim cannot be deemed to have deposited the money by deceiving the defendant's deception.

Therefore, there is no substantial relation between the deposit of the damaged party and the defendant's deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(1) At the first trial date, the Defendant, except for KRW 50,000,000,000 from the instant facts charged, withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining KRW 250,000,000.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim can be recognized as having deposited the instant deposit by falling under the Defendant’s deception, such as the Defendant’s deception as stated in the facts charged, and thus, the Defendant’s deception and the deposit of the victim is reasonable.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is found guilty.