The guilty part (excluding E, F, G, I, J, and K, an applicant for compensation in the original court's compensation order) shall be reversed.

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to cause the victim L or M to purchase commercial buildings or return the principal and the profits through resale on March 2017.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the fraud of the above victims in the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant had the victims purchase commercial buildings or had no intent or ability to return the principal and the proceeds through resale, and that the victims have paid the proceeds of sale, and therefore, there is an error of law by mistake of facts.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that: (a) the Defendant, as stated in the fraud in L and M among the facts charged in the instant case as to the right of sale in the name of DL, caused L and M to purchase commercial buildings in relation to L and M; or (b) had L and M had no intent or ability to return principal and profits through resale; and (c) paid the proceeds in lots

① The Defendant sold the certificates of sale in the name of DL to the victims and delivered the certificates of sale in the name of the victims, which appears to be an original document, and the victims currently retain the documents related to the certificates of sale and secure the right of sale by ascertaining the resale through another real estate brokerage office or receiving a proposal for purchase at another real estate brokerage office.

② An exaggerated explanation is that the defendant or DoM may produce a maximum of 80% profit in March 2017 when the land for livelihood countermeasures was in place.