A. Although there is a fact of receiving KRW 300 million from the victim of an intermediate payment from the misunderstanding of the fact, the part payment is not received by deceiving the victim without the intention of cancellation from the beginning, as the victim did not pay any balance on the agreed date.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence in light of the circumstances, such as the reasoning of the lower court duly admitted and investigated by the evidence, the Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment, was sufficiently aware of the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, by deceiving the victim and by deceiving the intermediate payment without any intention to delete each right and provisional seizure on the land subject to sale and purchase. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant agreed to cancel the right to collateral security and provisional seizure with the money if the victim did not specify the use of part payments as repayment of collateral security obligations and the victim paid any balance, while the victim, upon paying part payments, agreed to pay the balance after cancelling the collateral security and provisional seizure, with the money first.

Article 1 of the second transaction agreement drawn up by the defendant and the victim on March 22, 2010 shall be cancelled until the balance is settled.

“The right to collateral security shall be cancelled until the remainder of the contract,” in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Special Agreement.

"........" and "the provisional seizure shall be cancelled by no later than the remainder."

In full view of the objective meaning of the above language and text, the developments leading up to the conclusion of the second sales contract on March 22, 2010, and the statements by the mediators (L, I, and M), the Defendant, like the victim’s statement, remains remaining.