Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

A. Multi-household 301 indicated in the facts charged of mistake of facts is merely a place in which E resides in the world with the intention of G, and is not a place in which it was actually used as a residence.

B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: around January 2, 2013, at around 09:20, the Defendants are the victims E of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building No. 101, 301, and 301.

In this case, the defendants got the sales contract to the above 301 section of the claim that the defendants lent to the above Bara constructor, and the victim did not correct it by taking advantage of the fact that the defendant was in possession of the above 301 section.

As a result, the Defendants conspiredd with the victim's residence.

3. The judgment of the court below and the party deliberation

A. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the charges following the fact that E actually maintained the peace of residence in accordance with 301 on the date and time limit set forth in the facts charged, separate from who is entitled to ownership under 301 by the evidence of the lower court, such as the Defendants’ partial statement of the court, the prosecution for E, and the police statement, etc.

B. However, although the Defendants acknowledged the fact that they entered the 301st day of the date stated in the facts charged, the Defendants strongly denied the fact that E had been used as a residence of 301 since the police to the court of the trial, and the protocol of prosecutor’s statement (Evidence No. 16) on E was not adopted as evidence but submitted as evidence.

Ultimately, the direct evidence that E used 301 units as a residence only exists in the court of the original instance of E and G and in the investigative agency, and considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, each of the above statements is difficult to believe it as it is, and the prosecutor.