The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant had actually purchased the instant land and attempted to divide and develop it, but the F, the landowner, unilaterally demanded the cancellation of the sales contract, thereby preventing the purchase of the land. Therefore, fraud is not established.

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

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged based on evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, the Defendant was paid the victim the sum of KRW 6 million from September 1, 201, the remainder of KRW 30 million on September 30, 201, and from October 21, 201 to May 7, 2013, even if the Defendant was paid the landowner F with the payment of KRW 20 million on September 20, 201, in addition to the payment of the down payment of KRW 20 million on or around September 20, 201, the Defendant did not return the down payment of KRW 20 million to the Defendant on February 20, 201, and the Defendant did not receive KRW 20 million returned the down payment or the remainder of the land that was returned from F from the victim, and the lower court’s judgment was just in that it did not have any unlawful determination of facts as to the cancellation of the contract of this case.

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court’s decision is based on the following legal principles: (a) no new sentencing data was submitted in the instant trial and the relevant trial; and (b) no new sentencing data was submitted.