The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, C, K, andO respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With regard to the mistake of facts C, K, andO’s fraud, since the authority was delegated by G, the owner of the building, to enter into a lease contract for the studio building and the studio building on the Fstudio building and the Lstudio building on the Fstudio (hereinafter “instant building”), Lstudio building on the ground (hereinafter “the instant 2 building,” collectively referred to as “each of the instant two buildings”) with respect to the fact of embezzlement, the crime of fraud is not established, and since the money was used with the consent of the victim G in relation to the fact of embezzlement, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 1 and 2 in the form of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 1 and 2 in the form of a sale) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On November 13, 2011, in regard to the assertion of mistake of facts as to each fraud against C, K, andO, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C that “The Defendant was entrusted by the owner of the E-real estate in Switzerland-si, Chuncheon-si, with the right of lease from the owner of the E-real estate in Switzerland-si, Chuncheon-si. Therefore, as to the above building 403, the Defendant would give a deposit of KRW 42 million.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was requested to color a tenant by G, who is the owner of the above building, and was not authorized to engage in the lease contract. Even if the amount was received from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to establish a valid lease contract for the above 403 on the ground that it was planned that the Defendant was scheduled to make a partial repayment to the victim H and I, or that he was scheduled to make a personal consumption due to the Defendant’s living expenses, etc. at the time of being tried (Skcheon District Court 2010Da1093, 1138, 201Kadan924, Nov. 17, 201).

As such, the defendant deceivings the victim, which is, from the victim's seat, 500.