The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of misunderstanding the facts agreed that “The J sold 926 square meters of land owned by the victim at KRW 175,00,000 per square meter, and at its own expense KRW 10,000 per square meter and KRW 9,260,000 per square meter,” respectively.

J sells the land owned by the victim at KRW 175,00 per square year, and the principal victim paid KRW 9.2 million as the transaction brokerage service cost in accordance with the above agreement, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment and defrauds the victim KRW 9.2 million from the victim.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1) The victim consistently made a statement consistent with the facts stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. 2) The defendant asserts that after the conclusion of the sales contract for the land of this case owned by the victim, the victim called the victim to settle the transaction brokerage service cost, which was made at the intervals of J, and that the victim was transferred KRW 9.2 million from the victim to the account under H.

However, on the day when the victim deposited KRW 9.2 million into H account, the recording of the file in which the contents of the conversation between the defendant and the victim are recorded is as follows.

In other words, in order for the defendant to notify the victim of the account number of H in the name of H to deposit KRW 9.2 million, the victim stated that "the purchase price has been entered in the name of G (Buyer)" to the defendant, and the defendant should not have the victim put the money into G (G).

She was placed towards that end, and the scars were fake.