A. Defendant (De facto misunderstanding and unreasonable sentencing) 1 did not make a false statement to the victim of misunderstanding of facts stating that “I would sell and make profits from the purchase of the building equivalent to KRW 5.3 billion, and would make profits from two times the investment possible.” The victim received KRW 230 million from the victim as the name of the fund to take over the Dong Pwp, an agricultural company, or as the fund to establish the Dong Pwp, which is the acquiring entity thereof, or as the fund to establish the Dong P, which is the acquiring entity, and it does not receive the above as the purchase cost of the building to take profits and the appraisal cost. 2) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the proceeds promised even if he received the investment money from the victim, and if the victim made an investment, he could fully recognize the facts charged of this case that "the defendant obtained the victim a total of KRW 230 million from the victim under the pretext of the cost of the purchase of the building and the appraisal and assessment." Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1. The victim, at the investigative agency and the court of the court below, stated, “The defendant is aware of the method of cutting down in relation to real estate” in the investigative agency and the court of the court below as follows: “The defendant is able to bring profits twice until September 24, 2013 if he/she invests by August 2013, 201.” The victim believed that “the defendant is able to bring profits twice until September 24, 2013.”