All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant 1 did not commit deception in direct face to the victim, and the Defendant would not refund the purchase price if he did not obtain a civil engineering permit through K.

There is no fact of promise.

The defendant did not know that access roads were not opened from the beginning, or opened access roads intentionally thereafter.

Defendant is capable of changing land category from AA.

On the other hand, the Ulsan-gunO Forest (hereinafter “the instant forest”) was purchased, and the service price was paid under the name of civil engineering design, etc. prior to the conclusion of the contract with the victim.

2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby doing the same act as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Even if the defendant believed that it is possible to open access roads to the forest of this case and to convert mountainous district into the forest of this case, it was actually possible to do so in part.

Therefore, the above act of the defendant constitutes false or exaggerated advertisements that do not violate the good faith principle, and thus, it cannot be viewed as deception.

The victims could easily confirm the possibility of opening access roads to administrative agencies, and concluded a contract even if they could have anticipated or anticipated the risk of not opening access roads.

Therefore, the intention of fraud cannot be recognized on the ground that the defendant has failed to perform his obligation.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 160 hours) is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too minor.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant, through K, by deceiving M and N, an agent of the victim, as indicated in the facts charged, by deceiving the victim to acquire the purchase price of land.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.