A. Defendant 1) In 2008, after the Defendant sold a F hotel to the victims with respect to the instant case No. 2012 high group 1919, the value of the hotel room and neighborhood living facilities owned by the Defendant was much more than the profits to be paid to the buyers at the time and the unpaid construction cost, and thus, the Defendant was capable of paying the fixed profits to the victims. Since the advertisement for sale of the instant hotel was not false, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed deception as shown in the facts charged.

In addition, since the defendant had the intention to pay the confirmed earnings at the time of concluding the contract with the victims, it cannot be said that there was the intention of defraudation.

B) Even though the Defendant, the truster under the real estate management trust agreement for the hotel guest rooms sold to the victims for the case 2012 senior group 1919, 2013 senior group 2013 senior group 1576 cases, completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the instant hotel hotel for each guest room, the Defendant, at the same time, completed the registration of preservation of ownership for each guest room (hereinafter “self-construction”).

(2) In the case of fraud of case No. 1919 decided May 18, 2012, there is no intention in breach of trust between the Defendant and the method of committing a crime, and the same opportunity is identical, and the intention of the crime is also identical, and the time and place of the crime is close, and thus, the registration of the trust was completed only by subrogation for the hotel of this case, and the registration of the trust for each guest room has been completed pursuant to the trust contract after the registration of the ownership was completed. Since the construction of the first beneficiary under the trust contract was not carried out against the victims without any justifiable reason, there is no intention in breach of trust against each guest room.