Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime No. 1, which is set forth in the judgment of the defendant, eight months.

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not receive down payment of KRW 30 million from AE Real Estate AF director, T or U with respect to Q buildings in the first instance judgment. Since the Defendant was detained after the contract, the said money was not paid to the Defendant, and it was not delivered to the victim. The Defendant did not have the intention of deceiving or deceiving the victim.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, the Defendant was sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court on May 31, 2013 to eight months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment for fraud, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on May 16, 2014. The first offense of the first instance judgment in relation to the crime of fraud, etc. for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the first instance judgment in the instant case is in relation to the latter concurrent crimes under Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, and the punishment is determined after considering the case of concurrent judgment and equity pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and considering the mitigation of or exemption from the punishment. Thus, the first instance judgment is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake, the fact that the defendant acquired the ownership of Q building as shown in the first instance court's decision can be acknowledged by allowing the victim M to transfer the ownership of Q building to T, as shown in the judgment of the first instance court, under the pretext of exchange with the Mayang land, even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to transfer the ownership of the remaining land in question

3. Conclusion, mistake of facts by the defendant.