The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fraud around early September 2007, there was no fact that the purchase price of each of the instant lands is KRW 210 million and the purchase price is KRW 20 million.

In March 2008, about the fraud, 9 million won was actually used as repair cost, and there was no fact that the purchase price was lowered.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, determination on the assertion of mistake of fact 1) around September 2007, 2007, it is recognized that the Defendant, even though the actual purchase price of each of the instant lands was KRW 180 million, by deceiving the victim as if the purchase price was 210 million, and acquired 30 million won under the pretext of the purchase price.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① As a contract for the sale and purchase of each of the instant lands, a written contract signed on September 1, 2007 (the purchase price shall be KRW 210 million) as of September 1, 2007.

The contract made on September 1, 2007 and as of September 3, 2007 (the sale price column includes KRW 210,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, but the sum of the down payment, intermediate payment, remaining money, and the loans and the deposits received by the buyer is stated as KRW 180,00,000.

There is a "self-contract on September 3, 2007" (hereinafter referred to as "self-contract").

O made a statement on September 1, 2007 that the actual purchase price was KRW 180,000,000,000 from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the contract was prepared on September 1, 2007 by the defendant, and the contract was made on September 3, 2007 as the actual contract. The statement is consistent and concrete, and thus credibility exists.

On the other hand, the defendant's written contract on September 1, 2007 and his written contract on September 3, 2007 at the prosecutor's office on April 7, 2014 and the reason why the two contracts were concluded on September 3, 2007 is that the defendant's memory

When making a statement while making a provisional registration, the contract was prepared again for the reason that the contract was lost at the time.