The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

As of the date this judgment became final and conclusive against the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) obtained permission to engage in development activities for each of the instant lands at the time of sale to the victims; (b) conducted civil engineering works after obtaining permission to engage in the construction work; and (c) received any balance from the victims due to the completion of the construction works, the Defendant could cancel the registration of transfer of ownership with the said money; and (d) completed the registration of transfer of ownership to the victims; and (c) was merely suspended due to civil petitions by the neighboring land owners, extension of the construction period, and the spouse’s cancer disease and death, etc.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the aforementioned assertion of mistake, and the lower court rejected the above assertion and convicted the Defendant by recognizing the criminal intent of defraudation.

In light of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below’s aforementioned determination is justified.

At the time of the sale of the instant land, the Defendant agreed to develop each of the instant land into an exclusive housing complex and complete the construction work, upon receiving the sale of each of the instant land from the victims through the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”), who delegated the sale of the instant land by proxy, and the victims purchased the land that is scheduled to be developed into an exclusive housing complex, not merely purchasing the said land.

Therefore, when considering the criminal intent to acquire by fraud of a defendant, it should be determined on the basis of not simply whether the defendant had the intent and ability to register the transfer of ownership of the above land to the victims, but whether the above land can be developed as a whole housing complex and then the ownership of the land can be transferred to the victims.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant.