The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was living together with the Defendant at the time of the instant case

C I would provide money by collateraling the passbook to the house subscription.

Then, the above passbook was issued, and only the fact that H acquired the right to sell the house was obtained without knowing the fact that H acquired the right to sell the house, and entered into a sales contract with the victim. Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of acquiring the right to sell the house and the victim's money for the resale of the right to sell the house.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact, according to the Defendant’s statement at the investigation agency, the Defendant issued a passbook to C for the purpose of lending money, and thereafter became aware of the winning of apartment prizes based on the said passbook through the real estate, and thereafter, the real estate business entity should receive KRW 75 million and sell the passbook to the house, and prepare a written contract, etc. upon receipt of the document.

If we look at the fact that the defendant directly prepared all documents related to the sale of housing, such as a sales contract, to the sales office (Evidence No. 287, 288 pages) by stating to the purport that "I do not do so," the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant transferred the passbook for the purpose of preparing money, and further, even if the party who purchased the first right to sell housing, the circumstance that the party who purchased the first right to sell housing was "H" was unaware.

Even if the right of sale was already vested in another group, it was known or could have been sufficiently known that the right of sale was already vested in that group.

It is sufficiently recognized that the defendant commits the crime of defraudation of the victim's resale price for the resale of the right of sale.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is just and acceptable, and it is so erroneous.