The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not agree to supply the victim with a distribution directly cultivated by himself/herself, but had the intent or ability to supply another person with a distribution market cultivated by him/her at the time of receiving the distribution from the victim.

2. The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on evidence duly adopted and examined: (i) the Defendant, when entering into the first contract with the victim on August 14, 2013, she was to cultivate and supply dry field 3,00 square meters (hereinafter “G dry field”) located in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun, and received the down payment; (ii) the Defendant’s dry field presented to the victim was located in another place at the time of farming to verify the state of additionally cultivated and added farming in the police officer on October 2013; (iii) the victim was not an agreed dry field at the time of entering into the contract, but the Defendant did not purchase a new dry field for dry field 20 times, and the Defendant again paid the intermediate payment to the Defendant on October 31, 2013; and (iv) the Defendant again suggested that the dry field was supplied with another dry field for the purpose of selling the dry field.