The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was capable of paying KRW 80,00,000,000 for the lease deposit claim and KRW 25,000,000 for the construction cost claim under the name of the wife. In addition, the Defendant was in a situation where the Si event and the F Model House construction contract were concluded, and the F site was already owned by the Si event and the basic civil works were already established, and the Defendant had the intent and ability to have the victim take charge of the human body works, but the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant merely did not have the intent or ability to fully pay the money even if he received the money from the injured party as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and also could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the injured party and acquired the money by transfer of KRW 20 million as the money for the construction deposit, even though he did not have the intent or ability to entrust the construction work to the injured party due to the lack of funds for the exercise of the city. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the determination of the sentencing unjust is not only reversed the Defendant’s continuous statement on the nature of the instant monetary amount, the time of return of the agreement, the place of use thereof, etc., but also reversed the Defendant’s statement on the grounds that it is difficult to easily understand the crime, and that there is no evidence to find out the opening of the crime, up to the trial, the damage was not recovered, and the Defendant was actually making efforts to recover damage. Nevertheless, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant submitted an agreement under the name of the company with limited liability, which is not the victim, and agreed to the Defendant twice.