The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant believed that at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant would be able to raise the funds for the construction of a new unit house by conducting a new apartment construction business with J and apartment construction business, and thus, there is no intention to commit fraud.

In addition, since one victim still holds a claim right under the instant sales contract, there is no damage to the entire property, and as long as the instant sales contract was concluded lawfully and effectively in accordance with the surrounding market price, it does not have to obtain unjust pecuniary benefits from the defendant or H, and therefore, it is not established a crime of fraud.

2) On October 20, 2014, as the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from the damaged person to specify the objects of auction as the successful bid price, and there is no means to clarify the objects of auction. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed the real estate subject to auction to J without being awarded a direct bid price with the amount of KRW 300 million, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, but rather borrowed KRW 300 million to J, and thus, there is no intention to commit fraud.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Determination of the establishment of fraud by deception of property shall be made at the time of receipt of the property at the time of receipt of the property. Meanwhile, as long as the defendant does not confession, the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be made by taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction conducted (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2630, Jan. 20, 1998). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant deceivings the victim and received KRW 10 million and KRW 300,000,000, respectively, and there were intent to obtain money at the time of delivery of each money, so the mistake of facts and legal principles of the defendant are with merit.