The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On August 23, 2010, the Defendant alleged a mistake of fact entered into a contract for new construction works of I and Ftel (hereinafter “instant building”). The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the said contract was null and void at the time of entering into the said contract, and the Defendant was given a subcontract for construction of H-sn beam in the said new building from G which constructed H-sn beam, etc. in the said building, with the right to remove the H-sn beam as well as the right to dispose of H-sn beam, even if the Defendant received a down payment from the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to supply H-sn beam to the victim, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (the community service order of two or more years of suspended execution and 80 hours of imprisonment in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts is as follows. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, in light of the following: "A person with H-sn beam as a witness in the trial room, or I with H-sn beam witness in relation to other persons with H-sn beam, G or I with H-sn beam witness in relation to each other, and the defendant knows that he should not dispose of H-sn beam in mind."

B. Although there is no extenuating circumstance to consider the Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing, such as the fact that the Defendant repaid or deposited the total amount of the money obtained by deception and endeavored to recover damage, the Defendant, despite the absence of the right to dispose of H-Sn beam, acquired a large amount of money worth KRW 35 million from the victim by citing that the Defendant had the right to dispose of the money, and there was a history of being sentenced two times or a suspended execution as the crime of fraud, which is the previous crime.