The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1 is not G, the representative director of D, but the Defendant also recommended the victim to purchase the forest of this case under the state that he belongs to G. As such, there was no deception of the victim and no intention of deception was made. 2) As long as the filing of the instant complaint exceeds the filing period, the prosecution of this case is null and void in violation of the provisions of law.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable for eight months of imprisonment. B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfasible and unfair. 2. The summary of the facts charged is around 11:00 on December 16, 2008, the Defendant purchased the Defendant’s “Fforest land of Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “the instant forest”) at the D office of Songpa-gu Seoul building 601, and the Defendant’s son E purchase of the Defendant’s “F Forest land of Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “the instant forest”) at an ordinary 2.80,000 won, and there is a broad road connected to the expressway, and a large-scale park will be constructed around, and the road is constructed, and there is no access road connected to the said land from the said land to the near, and thus, there is little possibility that the Defendant purchased the said land within a short period of time, and there is little possibility that the land price would be 00 square meters of land as well as 00 square meters of land at the time of purchase.

After all, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of 146,770,000 won from the victim as the price of land, etc. around December 16, 2008.

3. Public prosecution;