A. Fact-misunderstanding (crime part) ① The Defendant concluded a contract with C to purchase the E building, and subsequently had the victim F with the intent to transfer ownership of 101 and 301 units of the E building 101 and 301 units of the E building. In fact, the Defendant prepared a lease contract with the victim as to the above 101 and 301 units of the E building and created a lease right.

However, at the time of the contract, the defendant was aware of the obligation to be secured by the E

The defendant could not register the transfer of ownership of the building under the name of the defendant on the ground that he/she reaches KRW 895 million, not KRW 70 million, but KRW 790 million.

(2) In addition, although the Defendant intended to have L take over the above obligation with the registration of transfer of the ownership of I real estate in order to take over the secured obligation against the mortgage established on I real estate, the Defendant could not take over the obligation with low credit rating of L.

Since Defendant did not intend to obtain fraud as above, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to purchase the E building from C, and did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership of the E building Nos. 101 and 301, and the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to acquire the victim’s obligations with respect to the I real estate.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, there is an intention to obtain fraud from the accused.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law as to mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(1) The defendant has not acquired the obligation of I real estate.