The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have committed an active deception against the victim, and the Defendant purchased four officetels at the victim’s request in the Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter “officetel”). The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant even though the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the price at the time of purchase of an officetel, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was able to receive the instant officetel sales amount from the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not notify her financial status, thereby making the victim aware that he could receive the instant officetel sales amount.

The decision was determined.

1) According to the Defendant’s statement at an investigative agency, the Defendant knew of the fact that an officetel was not well leased or sold and, in itself, did not have any investment value, and thus, was not in need of residence at the time, and thus, there was no special reason for unreasonable purchase. However, the Defendant accepted the condition that “it may be offered as security to liquor companies prior to the payment of the purchase price,” and concluded the first sales contract with the victim.

2) The victim acquired the ownership of an officetel in light of around 2006, and subsequently, intended to sell the instant officetel due to the occurrence of a large number of expenses for interest on the collateral security obligations established in the second financial right, but the victim did not appear and received delivery of the Defendant’s purchase intent through F during the instant officetel, and thereafter, the Defendant.