The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, on June 13, 2015, entered into a sales contract with the victim D on behalf of the F (hereinafter “instant contract”) on G and H land (hereinafter “instant land”) on behalf of the F, and did not intend to purchase the instant land from the beginning. The Defendant entered into a trade agreement with the victim’s wife to operate the adult amusement room by making a contribution of KRW 20 million each with the victim’s wife, and accordingly, purchased the amusement machine. However, the Defendant was unable to perform the business agreement on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the other case, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake in fact are: (a) the victim made a statement consistent with the facts charged in this case at the investigative agency and the court of the court below; and (b) the co-defendant B in the police station stated that “the victim sent the victim the amount of KRW 20 million for the amusement machine business operator,” but the facts did not return the said money to the amusement machine business operator; and (c) the victim made a false statement with the intent to sell the amusement machine already purchased to the victim.

The Defendant stated to the effect that it would be said that the Defendant would do so, and that the Defendant used the instant contract on behalf of F to repay his/her own debt incurred by the Defendant, and that the Defendant entered into the instant contract on June 13, 2015, on behalf of F, and the victim was found to conceal the fact that the grave was located on the instant land, and the instant contract was null and void, and the Defendant did not intend to purchase the instant land from the beginning. However, the Defendant asserted that he/she did not intend to purchase the instant land from the damaged person.