A. (AE of a victim of misunderstanding of facts) The Defendant only acquired 30 million won by fraud but does not acquire 50 million won by fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant made the same assertion in the trial of the lower court, and the lower court, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated, found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged that the Defendant obtained KRW 50 million from AE by allowing AD, who is aware that the real estate sales contract is not effective, to receive KRW 50 million from AE.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment of the court below does not contain any error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. According to the instant argument and record on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court appears to have made an adequate decision by fully considering the grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

[However, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, by adding "Article 347(1) and Article 34(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud against AE)" to Chapter 5 of the original judgment, the correction shall be made.