The appeal is dismissed.

In fact, the Defendant entered into a business agreement with the victim and the Defendant to provide the victims with the instant land, 2 containers, and the collection machinery installed inside the container (hereinafter “instant land, etc.”) as the E company site, and to divide one half of the profits by operating the E company. There is no fact that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim.

Since the victim of legal principles promised to deliver the instant land, etc. to the Defendant by April 14, 2012, the Defendant’s act of transferring containers, etc. to another place is dismissed by the consent of the victim.

The sentence of the court below's decision on unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The court below's determination of mistake of facts is consistent with the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, (i) G, the actual business owner of the E company with the victim and the husband of the victim, did not enter into a lease agreement with the defendant about the land, etc. in this case, and (ii) the E company operating on the land, etc. in this case, etc., from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and did not enter into a business agreement with the defendant: Provided, That since the land in this case was anticipated to be sold to a third party later at the time of the lease agreement, it can be sufficiently reliable and sufficiently reliable; (iii) the defendant also stated in the prosecutor's office that "the defendant was registered as the E company in preparation for the case where the defendant sells the land in this case, and did not actually operate the E company" (Evidence No. 212 of the evidence record), and (iii) the victim paid the defendant a monthly amount from August 2011 to February 2, 2012.