A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

A. In fact-finding, the defendant purchased the land in this case and recommended the purchaser to purchase the land in consideration of the profitability in the case of the building, and there is no promise to sell the proceeds of the land in this case as stated in the facts charged, and merely speaks abstractly about the possibility of resale in the process of soliciting the purchase of the land, and the purchaser also decided to purchase the land after reviewing the profitability for the purchase of the land in this case including surrounding circumstances such as M University. As such, the defendant did not have any means to possess part of the unregistered gains from the sale of the land in this case as stated in the facts charged and by deceiving the victims, thereby deceiving the purchase price, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. Considering the fact that the Defendant returned the total amount of the money obtained by deception to P and Q from the victim of unreasonable sentencing, and that the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment for the same crime, and that the victims suffered losses, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable (eight months of imprisonment).

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts reveals the following circumstances, namely, ① the victims believe that they would not purchase the above land from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to consistently acquire the ownership of the land after the division of this case, rather than purchase of the said land, and that they would make up a sales contract with regard to the above land. ② P is the Defendant’s punishment, and Q is the same as the Defendant’s employee, and the lower court stated the deception consistently (P is the lower court’s judgment).