A. As to the Defendant, on April 10, 200, out of the fraud by deception on April 10, 2009, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (as to Defendant A), as to the part of KRW 20 million, the Defendant was guilty of fraud as to KRW 140 million, which was paid with the purchase price of the land located in Ischeon-si (hereinafter “the instant land”). As long as the Defendant’s fraud as to KRW 144 million, which was paid with the purchase price of the land located in Leecheon-si (hereinafter “the instant land”), it is reasonable to view that a crime of fraud is established, since the damaged person was also remitted to the Defendant by deception.

2) According to the records of this case’s fraud on March 4, 2011, the point of time of deception in this part of the facts charged is sufficiently recognized as follows: (a) on March 4, 2011, where E or the victim paid the purchase price of the original land located in the iron market (hereinafter “the instant iron market”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, or around that time, the Defendant made the same remarks as indicated in the instant facts charged; (b) thus, the point of time of deception was erroneous in this part

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the defendant acquired property benefits that exempt the debt owed to E in return for the transfer of the instant steel land to the victim.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that fraud is established as to this part of the facts charged.

3) On July 28, 2011, the victim of the fraud consistently states the fact that the victim paid KRW 17 million to the defendant. However, the victim is merely unable to clearly memory the payment method, and it cannot be readily concluded that the victim’s statement has no credibility.

In addition, the rejection by the court below on the ground that the defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged by the prosecution, but the court below made a statement as a result of the reduction of the confession.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that fraud is established as to this part of the facts charged.

4) On August 15, 2011, part 11 million won out of the fraud with the Defendant and the victim’s pecuniary transaction relationship.