The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was aware of the fact that there was no deception by the victim as stated in the facts charged, and instead, the victim knew that the right to collateral security was set up in the name of Songpa-gu Seoul F building, the fact that the right to collateral security was set up in the name of Songpa-gu Seoul, and

In addition, the original H and I tried to make an investment in the Defendant’s business, but it failed to make an investment due to the lack of financial standing.

As such, the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the victim was well aware of the business status of the defendant, and as the investment of H and I was no longer made, it was not paid the construction cost to the victim, and there was no intention of defraudation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The circumstances in its reasoning that the lower court had already been recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts are as follows: ① if the Defendant had been aware of the Defendant’s business status as claimed by the Defendant, it appears that the construction cost would not have been expected to have been paid for a large amount of construction up to 39,420,000 won; ② H and I did not have promised to make an investment like the Defendant’s assertion; and ② the Defendant himself did not have prepared an investment contract with H and I, as described in the facts charged, could be sufficiently recognized to have acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to 298,420,000 won of the construction cost by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, the Korean Criminal Procedure Act.