A. The Defendant, who is the complainant of mistake of facts, has traded real estate with D and D, and the Defendant agreed to purchase each of the instant real estate jointly with D to bear half of the purchase price and to own D and 1/2 shares.

Therefore, even though the civil litigation instituted by the defendant is based on legitimate title, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court. (A) The Defendant, as a real estate broker, has introduced real estate to D from 2001, and R is a real estate broker in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul.

D around May 2003, through the introduction of the defendant and R, purchased land and buildings located in M redevelopment area and its ground buildings, and sold them again with the introduction of the defendant, and made profits by resale in an unregistered state.

(2) First, on May 13, 2003, D purchased the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land and Building KRW 160 million from S. However, the sales contract includes “U (V real estate employees, other than the Defendant’s brokerage office)” as the buyer, written W as an authorized broker, and as an employee of R and V real estate.

Since then, D has sold the above real estate to N to N in X, a N’s son’s father, to the unregistered condition of KRW 28 billion, and accordingly, on May 13, 2003, the above contract entered the name “X” on the side of the entry of “U et al.”.

(3) In addition, on May 22, 2003, D purchased from Y the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Z land and buildings in KRW 190 million. The buyer column of the sales contract includes “D and one other” and the broker column includes R.