The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of the first fraternity, the Defendant, in the first fraternity, received C’s previous accounts leading to the intermediate payment, and received KRW 3.7.6 million around December 201 as a guidance, and thus, he did not acquire the guidance money.

In the second case, while the mutual savings bank received the mutual savings bank in the first sequence and then paid the mutual savings bank normally, the mutual savings bank could not pay the mutual savings bank from the date of withdrawal from the company accompanying the mutual savings bank on June 2012. Therefore, the criminal intent of acquiring the mutual savings bank cannot be recognized.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the facts charged was admitted to the fraternity organized by the Victim C on May 201.

However, the defendant was in bad credit condition at the time, and even if he was paid the fraternity first, he did not have the intention or ability to pay the fraternity.

Nevertheless, the Defendant made a false statement as if he were to pay an advance payment, and received the order of priority from the injured party, and received the delivery of KRW 3.76 million around December 1, 201, KRW 4.8 million on January 31, 201, KRW 100,000 on February 3, 2012, and acquired property benefits equivalent to KRW 5 million on or after May 201, by failing to pay an advance payment.

3. The judgment of the court below is that the court below can recognize the criminal intent of defrauding the defendant by compiling the evidence in its judgment.

Based on the judgment, the defendant was convicted.

4. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the deliberation of the party, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was proved to the extent that the defendant had a criminal intent to acquire the guidance money at the time of joining the fraternity operated by the victim, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is justified.

① The Defendant joined two totals around May 201 and January 2012, 201.

Among them, the first guidance is the injured person.