The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation 297,00.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) As to the fraud under paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below on the misunderstanding of facts (the fraud around July 2005) as to the defendant (the defendant committed fraud), the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged, which found the defendant guilty, on the ground that the defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of deception, since he had the right to collateral security of KRW 600 million with the maximum amount of the debt amount in the KK forest in Gwangju City in order to secure the victim's obligation to return the purchase price, the defendant withdrawn a request for auction against the sum of KRW 29,000 of the forest land in Gwangju City D and seven parcels (hereinafter referred to as "the forest in this case") and completed the registration of ownership transfer in installments, or had the intent to pay KRW 700

On the other hand, on August 12, 2013, the defendant's state appointed defense counsel is not a fraud under paragraph (1) of the decision of the court below in addition to the fraud under paragraph (1) of the decision of the court below.

With respect to the fraud of subsection (the fraud of the loan in the name of the lawsuit costs) (the fraud of the loan in the name of the lawsuit costs), since the defendant would pay 150 million won from the winning money in the appellate court in a case where he knows the fact that the victim has lost in the first instance court, he cannot be viewed as deceiving the victim since he would pay 150 million won from the winning money.

With respect to the fraud of the subsection (the fraud of the borrowed loan under the name of development cost), the victim's assertion that the above money cannot be considered to have been paid by the Defendant's deception, since the victim visited the design office with the husband, who is the owner of the land of the company bank, and directly confirmed the possibility of development with the husband, who is the owner of the land of the company bank.

However, the grounds for appeal by a state appointed defense counsel are not cases requiring a state appointed defense counsel, and it is evident that the defendant submitted the notification of the receipt of notification of the trial record on June 21, 2013 after the lapse of 20 days from the notification of the notification of the receipt of the trial record by the court. Therefore, the grounds for appeal by