The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the Defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s defense counsel stated in the petition of appeal filed on May 9, 2019 that “the fact-finding, unreasonable sentencing, and misunderstanding of legal principles” as the grounds for appeal, and thus, the dismissal of appeal is not decided under the proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is difficult to specifically understand what kind of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below, on the sole basis of the statement of reasons for appeal in the petition of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. However, it is intended to express the reasons for appeal to the same effect as the

In fact, the Defendant believed that E removal work and K oil tank removal work are in progress, and he has made efforts to conclude the construction contract, so there was no intention of deceiving the victim D or the victim C, who is the same, to acquire the property by deceiving it.

In particular, in the case of victims D, as long as the defendant was fully aware of the situation faced by the defendant, there is no fact that the defendant was accused.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on different premises.

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

2. The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles also asserted that the defendant was not guilty, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by taking into account the circumstances in its reasoning. In light of the records, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles alleged by the defendant.

3. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is made.