The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding the Defendant had already obtained authorization of mining plan at the time of receiving money from the victim. On July 24, 2008, Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Construction”) obtained authorization of the two-lane mining plan in close vicinity to the construction site of Taean Enterprise City Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Construction”) (hereinafter “the instant construction”) and had sufficient possibility of receiving civil engineering works during the instant construction. Upon receipt of the order of civil engineering works, the Defendant had the intent and ability to grant the right to operate the restaurant in the site of civil construction.

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant had a high possibility of receiving orders for civil engineering works among the instant construction works, the victim has a career in the workplace related to civil engineering works, and operated the restaurant for a long time, and is well aware of the supply and demand process of civil engineering works, it is reasonable to deem that the victim himself/herself has invested in the defendant due to his/her mistake, and that the victim has committed an act of disposal in property by deceiving the defendant.

As such, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, and despite the absence of causation between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s mistake and dispositive act, the lower court convicted the Defendant otherwise, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of misunderstanding of facts, the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the following circumstances recognized by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant may receive a right to operate a restaurant at the construction site, and the principal shall be returned within one year, and the principal shall be 100% of the principal in the following year.