Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, the defendant.

A. The Defendants’ deception by omission is premised on the existence of the duty of disclosure. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendants do not have the duty of disclosure under the good faith principle to inform the victims of the abolition of the road plan.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① When concluding a sales contract with respect to F Miscellaneous land 814 square meters and G 208 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the possibility of alteration of urban planning was premised on both parties, and was also stipulated as a special agreement in the sales contract.

(2) Any modification or abolition of a road plan, which is set up on the ground of the subject matter of sale, is irrelevant to the Defendants’ liability.

③ The Defendants came to know late after the abolishment of the said plan, and later, transferred ownership to the victim by inserting and dividing a separate road site in the course of land division in order to minimize damage to the victim.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (Defendant A) and the prosecutor of mistake of facts (not guilty part of Defendant A), C did not delegate the preparation of a new contract to Defendant A, and since the content of a new contract was not known in advance by C, it can be acknowledged that Defendant A had an intentional intent to forge a sales contract under the name of C without authority. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) imposed by the court below on Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unjust.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants.