The appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, at the time of conclusion of the sales contract with the victim, was authorized to sell the pine trees to be extracted from the development site of Samyang Cement Co., Ltd., and entered into a contract with the victim to the effect that it may substitute the pine trees for another pine trees if it is impossible to extract the pine trees, at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract with the victim. Accordingly, even though the victim was requested to bring the pine trees to the victim without obtaining permission for the extraction of the pine trees, the victim refused the request, thereby failing to supply the pine trees to the victim, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

The sentencing of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant did not have been delegated with the authority to sell the above pine trees from the East Cement Co., Ltd. and was in a situation where it was impossible to extract the said pine trees. Nevertheless, as the defendant was delegated with the authority to sell the pine trees from the East Cement Co., Ltd. and the defendant could extract the said pine trees, the victim was urged to enter into a sales contract for the said pine trees and received the down payment from the victim. Meanwhile, in the sales contract between the defendant and the victim, the purport that "the pine trees may be replaced by another pine trees" is that "the pine trees may be replaced by another pine trees" in the sales contract between the defendant and the victim is merely that it may extract the pine trees from another pine trees at the victim's request if the permission to extract the said pine trees from the above pine trees is delayed, and the defendant can not be recognized that the victim had the ability to supply the pine trees and the same pine trees from another forest. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing.