The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant believed that he could have a person obtain a river occupancy permit, and endeavor to obtain a river occupancy permit due to various circumstances, but did not deceiving E by deceiving, even though there was no intention or ability to obtain a permit from the beginning, even though he did not intend to obtain a permit from the beginning.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant ought to be deemed to have received money from the victim E while recognizing that it is difficult to allow the victim E to obtain permission to occupy and use a river at least in doluss negligence. As such, the Defendant may be deemed to have committed the crime of defraudation.

① On May 26, 2011, the Defendant presented a written estimate to the victim as stated in the lower judgment, and made such remarks. However, the Defendant asserts that the access road prior to conducting a real survey was narrow, and that the access road prior to conducting a land survey could have been considered to have been granted permission to occupy and use a river to the victim by reporting that there was no river maintenance plan line on the land design map subsequent thereto, and that it could have been granted permission to occupy and use a river.

However, the victim of the crime was trying to expand the access road to H land in Gwangju.

However, one side of the above access road is adjacent to the river, and the other side is adjacent to the river, and the other side is trying to expand the access road after purchasing the above debate, but in order to find a way to expand the access road to the above land, other people want to purchase the above debate and construct a tenement house, and to find ways to expand the access road to the above land.

Therefore, the defendant is well aware of the above circumstances by hearing explanation from the victim, and occupation and use of the river to expand the access road to the above land.