The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In borrowing money from the victim F, the Defendant did not mean that he would give the land in D “D” if he borrowed money, and instead, the victim first borrowed money and borrowed money with the “Irnnn't use the money.”

Although the Defendant promoted a land readjustment project of this case in good faith to believe the success possibility of the project, the project was not run properly because P and J et al. did not unlawfully neglect their business rights while assaulting the Defendant, and there was no fact that the Defendant acquired the borrowed money by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts states the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court: (i) the Defendant was also admitted by the prosecution to the effect that the Defendant did not have the authority to dispose of or divide the Category D land to the Defendant (the investigative record 217 pages, 220 pages); (ii) the Defendant has consistently and clearly stated from the investigative agency to the lower court to the court that “the Defendant would make a loan to the Defendant if the Defendant would have paid money, while the Defendant would have been holding the said authority and would be able to distribute the land immediately after the completion of the project; (iii) the I and the J, which were at the scene of the victim lending money to the Defendant, have made a statement consistent with the victim’s consistent argument; and (iv) the Defendant tried to look at the victim by gathering at the same place where the business was well carried out by the victim; and (iii) it means that the Defendant would make the land to be collected (the investigation record 216-217-17).