The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are the following: (a) the Defendant made a confession and made a mistake in the course of committing the instant crime; and (b) the Defendant appears to have no profit gained by committing the instant crime.

On the other hand, the instant case is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, such as that the Defendant purchased the instant real estate without any financing plan for the purpose of speculative development, and acquired it by deception, and the nature of the crime was significant in the motive for the crime; that the Defendant was awarded an auction procedure between the Defendant and the Defendant who did not take the assumption of the obligation regarding the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant still remains liable for the amount exceeding KRW 500 million to the victim; that is, no recovery of damage has been made to the trial; and that there

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court [decision of types] and the basic area of punishment [decision of the recommended area] [the scope of punishment] 6 months of imprisonment [the scope of recommendation] - 1 year and 6 months [the scope of punishment by law] - 1 month of imprisonment - 10 years, etc., it is difficult to view that the court below's sentence imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the lower court’s facts constituting the crime No. 2 are apparent that “ November 21, 201” in Part 8 of the Criminal Procedure Rule is a clerical error in the phrase “ December 21, 2011,” and thus, it shall be corrected in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.