A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles were aware of the forest appraisal through the victim’s loan request, and the victim did not conduct an appraisal as required by the victim. While the victim used part of the money that the victim left in the process, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim from the beginning to acquire the money.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. Around June 7, 2009, the summary of the facts charged stated in the judgment of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the defendant at the G Office operated by the defendant of Gangnam-gu Seoul F. The defendant stated that "it would allow the victim H to get loans of KRW 900 million or KRW 1 billion in one bank within one week by requesting the lender who is well aware of the fact to conduct a high appraisal of the virtual forest." However, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he did not have an intention or ability to receive an appraisal of the victim's forest land. Nevertheless, the defendant received two times more than six million won from the victim's national bank account in the name of the defendant, which is the first place on June 8, 2009, transferred money under the same name as the victim's appraisal expense, and received some of the money from the defendant under the objective appraisal and assessment under the same name as the victim's account, and the court below received the money from the defendant and the defendant under the same name as the victim's evidence.