A. In fact, Defendant B did not enter into a lease agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on the E-public rental apartment in Osan-si, and did not sublet the above rental apartment to the victim G.

In addition, Defendant B would like to deal with the problems related to the above rental apartment or pay monthly rent to the victim G.

It was not false, and at the time, the defendant B did not have the intention or ability to pay the above rental apartment deposit.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the violation of the Rental Housing Act and the fraud, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Defendant A merely introduced the above rental apartment to G, and did not act as a broker in connection with the transaction of the above rental apartment, Defendant A did not assist Defendant B in a violation of the law on rental housing.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of aiding and abetting the violation of the Rental Housing Act by mistake, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles, although each charge against the Defendants who permitted the modification of the indictment is not permitted because the previous charge and the form of criminal act are different.

(c)

The sentencing unfair sentence (Defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service, 3 months of imprisonment and 1 year of probation) sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court.

(1) Osan-si E Apartment.