The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have received a transfer of the name of the lender of the State-owned land by deceiving the victim D, such as as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of the fraud of this case is erroneous in mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (1.5 million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim stated to the effect that, in comparison with the fact that the defendant, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, he consistently raised organic dogs in lots from the leased State land, he would have the subsidies and subsidies, and that the name of the lessee of the leased State land would have to be the name of the applicant for parcelling-out; (ii) the victim prepared the application for renunciation of lease to the State-owned land under his own name; (iii) the victim was transferred the name of the lender of the State-owned land by entering into a loan application contract; and (iii) the victim was difficult to find out the circumstances that the victim paid the rent for the transfer of the State-owned land; and (iv) the defendant was required to return the said name from the victim, but the prosecutor argued that the victim was transferred the leased State-owned land to the victim instead of returning the said tea, but the defendant did not have the right to purchase the State-owned land in his name in his own possession in 200,4.