The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, Defendant (1) was the victim who was 1.8 billion won, even though the down payment was 80 million won, but on July 13, 2008, the Defendant agreed to notify the victims that the down payment was 80 billion won and to pay each of 200 million won thereafter, and maintained a joint purchase relationship with the victims, such as resolving the problem of part payments loan, and therefore, it is not recognized that there was causation between the Defendant’s deception and the payment of each remittance of the victims after July 13, 2008.

2) Considering the fact that the victims decided to make an investment by taking into account the investment value of land, total purchase amount, and the amount of loans, etc., the Defendant invested 1/3 together with the victims, or did not make an investment decision based on the amount of down payment. (B) The facts constituting the crime of Articles 2 and 3 of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant concluded a contract with L attorney and paid KRW 200 million to L out of the amount received from the victims, and the Defendant invested in another place to leave the victims’ benefits, there is no fact that the Defendant deceivings the victims for personal use, regardless of land purchase.

C) As the Defendant used the money invested by the victims in relation to the crimes of paragraphs 1 through 3 of the judgment below in line with the intent of the partnership relationship, it is not recognized that the Defendant has committed fraud. (2) Considering the fact that the Defendant repaid part of the money obtained by deception to the victims, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim I, the lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. (b) As to the fraud of the Plaintiff’s land in Gyeonggi-do U.S., the Prosecutor (1) and the misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant’s statement in charge of the lawsuit on the said land.