The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) sold the Navy F, G, H, I’s total amount of 8,99 square meters to the victim E (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”); and (b) decided to exclude the graveyard portion; (c) the said victim filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, including the graveyard portion; and (d) the said victim did not report false facts to the effect that the Defendant filed a false lawsuit.

Even if the cemetery portion is included in the sale subject matter, the defendant at the time determined that the victim E and the victim E had "the seller possess and present 100 square meters in the cemetery," and the defendant did not have any intention to commit a crime with no intention to commit a crime against the defendant, as it was erroneous that the cemetery portion was excluded from the sale subject matter due to an ambiguous expression of the above special agreement.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

가. 묘지 부분의 매도 여부 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 묘지 부분을 포함한 이 사건 각 토지의 등기부상 총 면적은 29,747㎡인데, 이는 매매계약서에 기재된 토지의 면적 8,999평(㎡로 환산할 경우 29,748.7603㎡임)과 일치하는 점, ② 매매계약서에 따르면 8,999평을 평당 가격 13,890원으로 계산하여 매매대금 125,000,000원(≒124,996,110원, 8,999평 × 13,890원)을 정하였는데, 만약 피고인의 주장대로 묘지 부분 약 100평이 제외되었다면 매매대금이 위 금액보다 감소하였을 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 매매계약서의 특약사항란에 “묘지 일백평은 매도인이 소지하며 이거시 제시한다”로 되어있는데, 매수인인 위 피해자 뿐만 아니라 당시 매매계약서를 직접 작성한 J도 이 사건 매매계약은 묘지 부분을...