The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not think that the purchase price received from the injured party was used for personal use from the beginning.

In addition, it was sufficient to cancel the right to collateral security of one transaction object.

In light of these circumstances, the defendant did not have the intention to acquire the purchase price by fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court as to factual mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is recognized that the remaining payment date has been postponed at the request of the Defendant, the seller, and that the remainder has been paid in installments of KRW 6 million and KRW 70 million.

When concluding a sales contract or changing the due date for the payment of the balance, and when receiving the payment of the balance of KRW 70 million to the victim, the Defendant would have cancelled the right to collateral security on the subject matter of sale.

was made.

On the other hand, several divided buildings were registered in the name of the defendant or his/her wife.

However, it seems that it was difficult for the defendant to receive additional loans or franchising because the defendant had already been able to receive the payment of the construction cost due to the repayment of the substitute.

In addition, in full view of the fact that the Defendant was under pressure to pay the materials used by himself or the wages of the construction workers, and the circumstances where cash was very insufficient, the Defendant may fully recognize the Defendant’s intentional acquisition.

The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

We do not accept the Defendant’s factual mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. After the lower court rendered a judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant agreed with the victim.