The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, each of December 14, 2011.

The defendant's defense counsel by misunderstanding the facts of the defendant or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the guilty part of the judgment below on the grounds of appeal, but the above argument was withdrawn on August 23, 2017 when submitting a supplementary statement on the grounds of appeal, and later urged the decision ex officio, and the defendant's defense counsel by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the guilty part of the judgment below on the grounds of appeal.

P 110 Fraud related to commercial buildings (Article 1-2(b) of the judgment) was not only the Defendant sold at a price higher than the market price in order to obtain a profit from resale of the commercial buildings (P 110) but also transferred the ownership at a price higher than the market price. The Defendant did not acquire the purchase price corresponding to the purchase price by deceiving the victim.

at the time of Jeonju, the fraud of the building

D. (1) On the part of paragraph (1) of this Article, the Defendant paid KRW 645 million out of KRW 740 million, which he received from the injured party in connection with the exchange of the building at Jeonju-si, to T-owner of the building at Jeonju-si, and KRW 55 million was appropriated for the registration expenses, and the victim transferred the ownership of the building at Jeonju-si, and thus the Defendant did not have the intention to acquire it.

In regard to the forgery of the lease contract under the name of J and the fraud of the victim H (Article 2 of the judgment below), the Defendant was delegated by J with all the authority for the sale and purchase of P 110 commercial buildings and the conclusion of the lease contract under the name of J, and the Defendant concluded the above lease contract with U according to its delegation, and the Defendant did not have any important matter of the contract that the monthly rent of 1.3 million won is guaranteed at the time of concluding the exchange contract with the victim. In addition, the Defendant considered that U would pay the monthly rent to the victim, and the Defendant provided such explanation to the victim. As such, the Defendant forged or injured the lease contract under the name of J.