A. The defendant, around February 4, 2008, did not have sold the instant apartment 201 to L, and around March 7, 2008, notified the victims of the pre-sale to the third party when selling the instant apartment 201 to the victims. On March 24, 2008, the court below, despite the fact that the Defendant sold the instant apartment 304 units or offered them as security through N around March 24, 2008 and provided five bonds including 201 units, the court below acknowledged the victims of the instant apartment 201 and caused the Defendant to deception the victims by failing to inform the victims of such fact. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the trial court and the trial court, the Defendant, without notifying the victims of the important circumstances in concluding the sales contract for the apartment No. 201, by deceiving the victims as if there were no problems, is sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the acquisition of money under the pretext of the sale price.

The fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① From the investigative agency around April 23, 2008 to the original trial, the victims was recommended from the Defendant to purchase the instant apartment house 201, which had been at a price higher than the market price, and the Defendant believed the horses of the Defendant and issued the Defendant a total of KRW 120 million to purchase the instant apartment.

The apartment of this case from the defendant.