A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant recognized the victim J, K, and L that the registration of transfer of ownership of the Seo-gu Officetel in Gwangju (hereinafter “the instant Officetel”) could not be completed.

However, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On May 9, 2016, the Defendant’s summary of this part of the facts charged is to sell the instant officetel at a discounted price to the victim J, K, and L only to the people known, at the mutual infinite coffee shop located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju. On May 9, 2016.

It is well known that the president of G who operates the FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) is well aware of the internal branch of the company. Accordingly, he/she is responsible for the registration of transfer of ownership after sending money to B.

“.......”

However, in fact G was suffering from a serious financial crisis from around April 2016, and the creditors, including the defendant, were in an escape state where excessive communication was not easily made, and even if the defendant received money from the victims as the sale price, he was planned to satisfy the defendant's claims against G, and the defendant also was urged to pay the debt from the third party.

The defendant only planned to use the money received from the victims for the repayment of his debt, and there was no idea to deliver the sale price to G or F corporation. Therefore, the victims did not have the intent to transfer the registration of the transfer of the instant officetel in the name of the victims as agreed upon.

Nevertheless, the defendant is above.