A. In light of the fact that the defendant did not actively deceiving the victims and that part of the damage was restored, the punishment sentenced by the court below (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Since there was no economic ability to pay the remainder of KRW 160 million at the time when the defendant purchase apartment from the victim C, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim C of the fraud. 2) Considering the money obtained by the defendant of unfair sentencing from the victims, etc., the punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged concerning the fraud against the victim C in determining the public prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is that, on October 20, 201, the Defendant, even if purchasing an apartment house from the victim C, did not have the ability to pay the purchase price, he/she shall pay the victim the remainder of the registration of ownership transfer first before he/she completed the payment of the intermediate payment and the balance, and he/she did not pay the balance KRW 160 million even if he/she received the registration of ownership transfer from the victim under the husband R on November 8, 201 of the same year.

The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant, at the time of entering into a sales contract, said that the intermediate payment and the remainder are a plan to receive a loan due to a shortage of funds on the part of the victim; (b) the Defendant was able to promptly obtain a loan and resolve the victim’s loan; (c) the Defendant agreed to receive a loan in the name of husband-R after completing the registration of ownership transfer in advance between the Defendant and S; and (d) the Defendant’s husband-R was operating in China restaurant at the time when the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband-R were operated.