A. In light of the fact that the case of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor was grave and bad, and the criminal records of the Defendant’s same kind of crime, the sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is unreasonable as it is excessively uneasible.

B. Defendant 1) The judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty in the absence of misunderstanding of the fact that the Defendant did not have a criminal intent by deceiving the victim, was erroneous.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant requires KRW 300 million to pay interest to the Defendant for the purchase of the Defendant’s apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) 240 households in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for the purchase of the Defendant’s apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) at the end of November 2009.

The loan of KRW 300 million shall be paid with money within one week, or shall be paid with one bond for the apartment of 26 square meters.

“The fact that the victim stated to the effect that the check was delivered to the victim (Evidence No. 406 pages), ② the victim prepared a fair deed of promissory notes (Evidence No. 903 million won on November 30, 2009, KRW 171.5 million on December 1, 2009, KRW 8.2 million and KRW 30 million on the face of the Defendant (Evidence No. 88 pages), ③ on December 2, 2009, the Defendant completed the sale of each of the instant papers (Evidence No. 60 million on December 9, 2009, KRW 60 billion on the face, KRW 90,000 on December 9, 2009, KRW 30,000 on the face of 60,000 on the face of face value, KRW 78,000 on the face of 60,000 on the face of 5,005,000 on the face of 25,005.