A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are cited as grounds for appeal. misunderstanding of legal principles is based on the court below's finding of facts in violation of the legal principles on fraud, and as a whole, the court below's finding of facts can be viewed as misunderstanding of facts.

With respect to the site of E-House 502 (hereinafter “instant housing”) for which a contract for sale in lots was concluded between the victim and the NAo tower General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NAo tower”), the fact that a decision was made on provisional attachment and disposal as stated in the facts charged, disposal of the gold price, and compulsory auction commencement was made.

That is, there is a duty of disclosure to the defendant who is merely a sales agent and can be confirmed through a certified copy of the real estate register.

In addition, it cannot be said that it was notified during the actual process of concluding the sales contract, and the person who is obligated to transfer the ownership without any restriction according to the sales contract for the housing of this case is not the defendant, but the sales price actually paid by the injured party is also received by the Neo tower, and therefore the crime of fraud is not established.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant enticed the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

The judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

1) According to the statements made by the victim and L investigative agencies and the court below at the court below, when the defendant vicariously executes the above parcelling-out contract, it was completed such as the disposal of the price of provisional seizure and disposal as stated in the facts charged on the housing site of this case and the entry of the decision to commence compulsory auction.