The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant was not aware of the victim Q Q by showing the forged copy of the forged copy of the register. At the time of entering into a lease agreement, there was no intention to commit fraud because the Defendant had sufficient means to repay the lease deposit to the victim. 2) The actual inspection agent, U, etc. of the fraudulent part T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”) against the victim S (hereinafter “A”) conducted direct negotiations at the same time since the first introduction of the victim S, and the victim S and T entered into an agreement on the purchase of real estate investment (hereinafter “A”) with the unsold household in the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Building owned by AA (Representative representative AE; hereinafter “A”), and the agreement on the purchase of real estate investment (hereinafter “A”) was prepared between the victim S and T. In light of the fact that the Defendant is merely a guarantor, T provided a considerable physical security to the victim S, concluded an EF contract with other investors, and that it was a considerable effort to purchase the above building.

In addition, the victim S paid KRW 500 million according to the above investment agreement, and the defendant invested a total of KRW 180 million in the AB corporation, etc., which is U, regardless of the instant case, and only used the settlement amount of the above investment amount as the settlement amount of KRW 500 million under Te.’s understanding, it cannot be deemed that any crime has been established in relation to the above victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding the fraud of the victim Q Q. The lower court determined on December 17, 2001 regarding the instant officetel, the Defendant’s 7-dong Saemaul Savings Depository, Busan, 191.