The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no intention to commit a mistake of fact.

However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact: ① The victim would sell the victim’s maternity to a sanatorium by changing the purpose of the use of it to the elderly’s sanatorium.

was made.

The above Moel made the statement "," and the above Moel appears to be located at a designated place as a hot spring tourism complex and thus making it impossible for the defendant to change the purpose of use to a sanatorium for older persons. ② The defendant was not qualified as a certified broker, there was no Maur Trading experience at the time, and there was two cases where the real estate intermediary was successful from the date of 2010 to August 2015, and the defendant was not capable of selling Maurherel at the investigative agency.

(3) The Defendant did not properly examine whether the purpose of use can be changed on the basis of the response of several doctors who have been interested in the above telecom, and whether there is a de facto buyer, and the Defendant would sell the above telecom to the victim as a sanatorium for the aged.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant was paid in advance, and the Defendant did not seem to have made a separate effort to trade the telecom thereafter, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant had the intent of fraud by receiving KRW 69 million in total from the victim, while recognizing at least the fact that the Defendant could not sell the telecom with the alteration of the use of the telecom, and thereby allowing the possibility of committing fraud against the victim. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

B. A large number of loans have been granted in regard to the unfair argument of sentencing.