2. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

3. The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) Although there was no misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 6 million) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below found the Defendant guilty on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles by misunderstanding the same assertion as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part, but the court below stated in detail the grounds for credibility in the witness D’s legal statement consistent with the facts charged and based on the remaining evidence as stated in

In comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as otherwise pointed out by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. Determination of the unjust assertion of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is an unfavorable condition, such as imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name in 2008 and imprisonment for a period of eight months, and a period of two years of probation, which led to the instant crime, and the fact that there was a past record of having been sentenced for the same crime.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim during the trial and there has been a significant change in sentencing factors for the defendant after the judgment of the court below. The damage amount to the crime of this case is a small amount of KRW 10 million, and the crime of this case is a single concurrent crime with the crime of fraud recorded in the records of the crime of this case and the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which must consider equality with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the above crime.

In addition, the motive, background, means and methods of the instant crime, circumstances before and after the instant crime, and other arguments in the instant case.