A. At the time of concluding a contract for mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the procedures for change of a flood control area and a river area were under way in the Yongsancheon including an orchard, and on March 29, 2017, which was after the actual sales contract was concluded, 702 square meters were newly incorporated into a river area among 2,883 square meters in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, Busan-gun.

The fact that the defendant's statement as a flood control area is nothing more than an administrative term so that it can not be understood as a flood control area, and eventually, the whole content of the complaint is merely an exaggeration of fact-based circumstances, and thus no accusation is established.

B. The judgment of the court below on the imposition of unfair sentencing (the fine of five million won and the cost of lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles concerning the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the defendant argued to the effect that it is similar to the reasons for appeal in this part of this part at the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail under the title of "decision on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel" in the judgment. In comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and the judgment of the court below is not affected by the judgment of the court below on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the defense counsel at the trial, and there is no error of law in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles concerning this part. 2)

B. 1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court, based on various reasons for sentencing, such as the fact that the Defendant was deprived of the sales contract amounting to KRW 70 million for orchard and that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime. 2) The lower court did not change the conditions for sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new materials for sentencing in the trial, and even considering the various reasons for sentencing revealed during the oral argument, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive.