The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where a female sexual intercourses on the premise that he/she will receive money and valuables, the payment for such sexual intercourse constitutes an economic interest, which is the object of fraud.

In a case where the criminal deceptions the victim to the effect that he/she would pay the price for the sexual act without the intention to pay it, and the victim commits a sexual act with the offender on the premise that he/she would receive the price, the criminal who commits the sexual act shall be deemed to have acquired property benefits, which are equivalent to the price for the sexual act.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the victim could not be deemed to have committed any act of having the Defendant exempted from paying KRW 250,000,000,

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with labor for a ten-month grace period) is too unjustifiable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor tolds that “the defendant would give 2.5 million won to the victim E with the sex act as above at the time and place specified in paragraph (1). However, even if the victim committed such sexual act as above, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay it to the victim. The defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, applied for the amendment of the indictment to change the indictment to the effect that “the defendant acquired the pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 2.50,000 by acquiring the pecuniary advantage by sexual intercourse with the victim.” Since this court was changed to the subject of judgment by permitting this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is without examining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, on the ground that the above grounds for reversal are ex officio.