The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant alleged the denial of deception and deception by mistake of facts (as to the fraud of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the original instance), 1) the Defendant engaged in the business to jointly purchase the instant building with the victim C, and chid construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “chid construction”).

A) A sales contract with the victim C and a written confirmation of the intention to sell the building of this case were prepared to receive a loan from the Korea Mutual Savings Bank, and the Defendant decided to take charge of the loan from the Korea Mutual Savings Bank. The Defendant obtained approval for the loan under the condition of deposit of KRW 4 billion from the Korea Mutual Savings Bank, but the Defendant and the victim C failed to fulfill the said condition. Even if the Defendant was sufficiently able to prepare the deposit amount of KRW 4 billion, which is a loan condition, and even if the Defendant did not have the ability to prepare the deposit amount of KRW 4 billion, the Defendant was responsible for preparing the deposit amount of KRW 2 billion among them. Therefore, the Defendant did not have obtained the money by deceiving the victim C, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud. 2) The Defendant asserted for the refusal of payment in cash from the victim, as stated in the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 16, and 17, did not fact that the Defendant received the cash amount of KRW 23,500,00.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the court below found the victim C guilty on the grounds of the victim C’s statement and accusation as to the attached Table No. 1 No. 18 (2 million won) among the attached Table No. 1 in the judgment of the court below.

However, the victim C clearly stated in the court below that the part No. 18 (2 million won) No. 18 (2 million won) is not related to the instant case. In light of the above statement, the victim C’s investigative agency as to this part is each statement.