The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was entitled to use a total of 2,989 square meters of the area of two parcels, other than that of the Dollyang-gun, Namyang-gun, other than that of the Dollyang-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

Based on the judgment of the victim Shinsung Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim Co., Ltd.") approved the use of the above land, and even if the defendant does not have the right to use the above land for the purpose of agriculture cultivation, the defendant has the right to give consent to the use of the above land to the damaged company.

Since there was sufficient reason to believe, at the time there was no intention to commit the crime of illegal acquisition or fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court stated that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated at the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of factual mistake: (i) the Defendant leased the land including the instant land from C and N on September 1, 2010 (Evidence No. 2, No. 31,40,59 of the evidence record); and (ii) there was no authority to sublet the instant land without the lessor’s consent during the process of concluding the lease agreement [the police, the G, who prepared the lease agreement, notified the Defendant that “the land should not be used or sub-lease the instant land to the Defendant for purposes other than farming purposes at the time of the preparation of the lease agreement; and the Defendant also stated that “the Defendant was notified of the fact that he would not use the instant land for farming purposes other than farming purposes from G” (Evidence No. 1, No. 72 of the evidence record). The Defendant appears to have actively demanded that the damaged company use the instant land as a private soil (Evidence No. 2, No. 10 of the evidence record), and the damaged company.