A. In light of the text of the rebuilding project contract concluded by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and the intent of the parties, etc. as to each fraud against the victim P and R, E cannot sell the rebuilding association’s Nos. 505 and 506 (hereinafter “505, etc.”) without the approval of the rebuilding association, and can sell the building in general only with the approval of the rebuilding association, and the Defendant was well aware of such circumstances.

Although the Defendant, without approval of a reconstruction association, sold 505 units to the victim P and 506 units to the victim, and concluded a contract to sell 505 units, etc. to a third party before that, the Defendant did not notify the victims of this fact. Furthermore, the Defendant actively enticed the victims by stating that “I would not conclude a pre-sale contract, and will not sell it in the future.”

Therefore, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles that the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that it did not prove the facts charged.

2) As to the fraud against the victim T, the victim entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with the knowledge that the 111 underground of the composite building AF (hereinafter “Ground 11”) was newly constructed and delivered as a residential officetel until July 2013, with respect to the fraud of the victim T.

I stated on this issue.

In addition, when examining the brochures received by the victim T, clearly underground 11 is a residence.

The brochures are in accord with the rule of experience to regard that the defendant was prepared and distributed as a party to the sale.

Therefore, the lower court is not guilty on this part of the facts charged, deeming that it does not constitute criminal facts.