The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) on January 20, 2016, the Defendant received documents necessary for the cancellation of a mortgage from Luxembourg Co., Ltd., a person who is the party with low interest in the instant sales contract, as the date of the payment of the remainder of the sales contract; and (b) went in South with the victim; (c) although Luxembourg did not provide the above documents without any justifiable reason, the Defendant did not have the intent to obtain by deception.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to facts charged.

2. On the ground for appeal of this case at the lower court, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground of the lower judgment’s argument in detail at the lower court’s bottom of “a summary of evidence” column.

In the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the fact that Luxembourg was a civil suit between the defendant and the defendant as the person with the lower right to the building of this case, is related to the cancellation of the neighboring mortgage; (ii) if there is no smooth agreement between the two parties, it may be anticipated that the complete implementation of the instant sales contract made with the victim would be difficult; (ii) the defendant and the corporation did not have any specific consultation concerning the termination of the neighboring mortgage; and (iii) the defendant and the corporation did not keep the relevant documents at the defendant's office, if they were aware of such circumstances, they did not conclude the instant sales contract; or even if they concluded the instant sales contract, they did not require the defendant to keep the down payment KRW 100 million in all as initially agreed upon.