The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant stated that the instant housing site could be expropriated by the victim as a site for public facilities (public parking lots, etc.), and that there was no deception by the victim as stated in the facts charged, and that there was a residential environment improvement project was planned in one part of the instant housing site, and that there was no intention of deception as it was explained to the victim, as it was believed that I would be aware that there was a residential environment improvement project, and that I

On the contrary, the court below found the defendant guilty of fraud has erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

② In relation to the violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, the Defendant received not money as the consideration of brokerage but as the service cost for real estate consulting distinct from brokerage business, so the above provision of the Act cannot be applied. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of violating the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on fraud

A. In relation to the fraud of the judgment of the court below, the defendant argued to the same purport, and the court below acknowledged the following facts or circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① if the defendant purchases the instant house to the victim on the basis of the victim’s horse and the source materials output from the Gu office website only, he would be admitted as a site for a public parking lot and the long-term rental apartment right to move in and receive compensation up to KRW 150 million for the future. The defendant received KRW 150 million from the victim under the name of the victim, such as the purchase price of the housing, and ② the defendant remitted the amount of KRW 12 million out to J as the purchase price and remitted the amount to KRW 48 million for the remainder of 48 million.