The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was permitted to sell the 7th floor of the instant building from the actual owner AF of the 7th floor among the buildings of the 13th floor underground floor above Suwon-si I (hereinafter “instant building”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and thus, was allowed to sell the instant building to the 7th floor prior to the payment of the remainder under the contract for sale and purchase. As such, the Defendant was entitled to sell the instant building to the 7th floor, and ② claimed a lien against the 7th floor of the instant building.

The joint business agreement with V was concluded for sale in lots. ③ Each sale in lots or loan of this case was based on the premise of sale in lots to the 7th floor among the buildings that are not the entire buildings of this case, and the above 7th floor was under the condition that there was almost no need for additional funds to be paid in the state that the interior construction was completed. ④ The Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the borrowed money or to pay the proceeds of sale in lots as he normally operates the business at the time of each sale in lots or borrowing of this case. The victims

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, in collusion with K and V, conspired with each other to pay the borrowed money or to pay the proceeds from the sales contract in collusion with K and V, thereby deceiving the victims even though the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to pay the proceeds from the sales contract.

It is reasonable to see that the criminal intent of defraudation is also sufficiently recognized.

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

① The Defendant, who owned the 7th floor of the instant building, was given the authority to sell the said 7th floor even before the remainder payment under the sales contract for the 7th floor of the instant building was made by AF.

The argument is asserted.

However, the AJ's original judgment.