Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles against Defendant FF, who purchased approximately KRW 8,222 square meters of forest land G and four parcels outside of Y in 2009 (hereinafter “instant land”), the total market price at the time of August 2009 is less than KRW 300 million or KRW 400 million, the amount of profit acquired by committing fraud against the victim is less than KRW 500 million, which is not a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) but only

It is not true that the research institute entrusted with the research institute with the purpose of developing the solar energy charging type electric dyptoba with the victim's consent after keeping 14 vehicles owned by the victim AD for free in the warehouse of the defendant. At the time, the total market value of the Oraltoba in this case is not equivalent to 4.4.8 million won, which is stated in the facts charged, but is limited to 10 million won.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of fraud on the part of the Defendant on the fact that the Defendant, as the actual owner, was in trust with the victim’s name as the victim, although the victim C was the actual owner of A Qbts’s car (hereinafter “the instant car”).

The defendant asserts that the sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (the crimes of paragraphs 1 through 4 of the original decision: Imprisonment with prison labor for six years, and crimes of Articles 5 and 6 of the decision of the original decision: imprisonment with prison labor for one year) of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes shall apply to the real estate where the value of the real estate is at least 500 million won when the real estate is acquired by deceiving a person to transfer the ownership of the real estate or by letting a third party transfer the ownership of the real estate by deceiving a third party concerning the fraud of the victim F of the judgment