The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant explained the victims that there was a prospective purchaser to sell the apartment unsold in lots, not the confirmation of the sale of the apartment unsold in lots, and the actual process of sale was conducted, but the victims were not sold in lots, unlike the anticipated, and there was no intentional deception.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The 2-year suspended sentence on October sentenced by the court below on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the sales contract for the unsold apartment bonds has not become final and conclusive is sufficiently recognized by deceiving the victims to indicate the list stating the names and telephone numbers of the buyers for each apartment house, and to enter into a contract with the buyers by purchasing the unsold apartment house as a package of dumping, and concluding the contract with the buyers. When investing in the unsold apartment house in the unsold apartment sale business, it would pay the proceeds equivalent to 50% of the principal invested within one month.”

B. There are extenuating circumstances such as: (a) the Defendant did not have a previous record except for the punishment of a fine for the crime of this case and this type; (b) the Defendant appears to have suffered considerable loss in the course of carrying out an unsold apartment sales business on his own; and (c) the Defendant partially discharged the victims

On the other hand, even though the possibility of sale in lots and the occurrence of profits is uncertain, the defendant had already been sold in lots, and as long as high profits have already occurred in a short period, deceiving victims to acquire large amounts of money up to 200 million won, and the court below made the decision with the victims.