Although the court below which acquitted the facts charged of this case, there is an error of mistake of fact in the judgment below that acquitted the facts charged of this case.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendants made a false statement as to the facts charged to the victim.

In addition to the lack of recognition, even if so, such a horse was used.

Even if it is difficult to view it as a deception, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1) First, in the case of subparagraphs 104 and 103-1 of the I commercial building, the victim made a statement at the investigative agency that he/she purchased each of the above commercial buildings for the purpose of operating or leasing the store, and in the case of the M commercial building 104, 105, 106, 202 and 203, T which is the victim witness at the court of the court below stated that he/she purchased each of the above commercial buildings for the purpose of operating a coffee shop, it is difficult to recognize that the victim purchased each of the above commercial buildings for the purpose of raising profits from sales by resale.

2) Next, the rest of officetels and commercial buildings were not recommended by the Defendants to make investments in officetels or commercial buildings by approaching the victim who had no intent to make an investment in real estate, but the victim, who had been for investment in Gwangju real estate from the beginning, was making an investment in officetels or commercial buildings through the Defendants introduced by T. ② Even based on the victim’s statement, the Defendants are specific methods of resale to the victim.