The judgment below

The part of conviction and the part of not guilty as to the fraud against E shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

The decision of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

On December 3, 2010, the prosecutor's mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud on December 29, 2010, the victim AW and AX provided a proposal to purchase land with the intention to dispose of the land by G and the defendant, etc. under the condition that they are engaged in a lifelong agricultural business over 70 years old and lack knowledge of superficies and superficies, etc. at the time.

Therefore, there was an intention of the victims to dispose of the right to collateral security or superficies creation.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the fact that the victim AW and AX caused a mistake by the defendant's deception, but the victim's intent to dispose of the right to collateral security or superficies was to create a superficies.

The finding of innocence on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to prove is erroneous or misunderstanding the legal principles.

With respect to the fraud against the victim E, the victim E had the intent to set up a collateral necessary to obtain a down payment of KRW 30 million by deceiving the defendant and P, and in general, the collateral is set at a rate equivalent to 120% of the loan amount, so the victim E could have predicted that the collateral should be set up more than the loan amount.

Nevertheless, if the victim E did not directly examine the relevant documents necessary for the right of the party, and signed and sealed the document on the establishment of the right to collateral security, the victim E had the intention to establish the right to collateral security of at least three million won impliedly.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the court below did not have any intention of the victim E with respect to the right to collateral security established by the defendant, P, and P to borrow KRW 70 million.

This is a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles.

The sentence of the court below's improper sentencing is too uneasible.