The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a mistake of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles, and did not have any intent to commit a crime of deception.

In other words, the defendant will transfer L with ownership of 107, 108, and 109 of the commercial building of this case through a free contract or a public sale procedure.

There was no promise to repay the full down payment that was returned to or to F, and the Defendant’s promise to L was merely to transfer the “security deposit and right” of the instant commercial building as stated in the confirmation document of February 27, 2012, and the Defendant delivered the security money referred to in the said confirmation document to M.

Moreover, the defendant did not have any obligation to return the down payment to F.

In addition, the Defendant faithfully implemented the contents of each agreement (as of February 27, 2012, November 12, 2013) as a genuine right holder with regard to the “security deposit and right to rights” of the instant commercial building, and L purchased Nos. 107 and 108 among the instant commercial buildings as a result of the Defendant’s aid. The Defendant did not have any intent or ability to acquire ownership of the instant commercial building and transfer it to L.

It is difficult to understand that the defendant committed deception in order to acquire the property profit of 60,850,000 won in a considerable amount of money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud in determining the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, contents of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8418, Apr. 27, 2007). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant, contrary to the assertion of the Defendant, is at least the Defendant.