A. misunderstanding of facts1) The Defendant did not agree to grant the authorization and permission of a water skiing ground to the victim, and if the Defendant is equipped with the facility, it would only be possible to obtain the permission of a water skiing ground until March 3, 2012 or May 2 of the same year following the following year. Moreover, the Defendant is Jeju City D (hereinafter “instant site”).

(ii) The victim was a person who had been engaged in the business of the water skiing ground and had no intention to obtain money from the victim because he believed that he/she could obtain permission for the business of the water skiing ground because he/she could be used as the "ship navigation purpose". Thus, the victim was a person who has been engaged in the business of the water skiing ground for a long time and was more interested in the business of the water skiing ground and paid the cost of the repair and repair of outdoor toilets necessary for the operation of the water skiing ground by the victim himself/herself, and the victim cannot be deemed to have paid the money by the Defendant's deception.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Determination 1 on the intent of deception and deception crime) The lower court determined that the Defendant could be recognized by deception in light of the following facts. The Defendant promised to obtain permission related to the water skiing ground from the victim until March 2012. The instant site managed by the Defendant is a place where the permission related to the water skiing ground cannot be granted. The Defendant did not have any question or application from the management agency, such as viewing, in connection with the permission related to the water skiing ground. 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s fact-finding is acceptable.

In addition, if we look at the above facts, which are recognized by each of the above evidences, the victim is expressed in the decision of the court below with the criminal intent of defraudation.