A. Prosecutor 1) In regard to misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the fraud against Victim C (2015 Highest 2982), the Defendant is only “Etel” as indicated in the lower judgment on July 2011.

() Around November 2011, C was present in the place where the right to sell an officetel 514 was sold to the victim C and it was confirmed that there is no problem in the registration of transfer of ownership. Around November 201, C was present in the place where the right to sell an officetel 514 was sold to theO and the registration was not clear if two weeks elapsed, and C was asked C to become one more company. In light of this, the court below rejected the judgment of the court below that C was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the credibility and losses arising from the purchase of an officetel 415, since C did not enter into a contract where C would purchase the right to sell an officetel 415, because the representative director of the F corporation in charge of the business of the sale of an officetel 415, the ownership registration was guaranteed, and C would have concluded a contract with N to purchase the right to sell an officetel 415, and the purchase price payment was made accordingly.

B. Defendant 1) In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the fraud against 16 persons, including victims G et al. (2014 highest 9334), the Defendant did not promise the victim G et al. to transfer the registration of an officetel, and the Defendant did not intend to commit fraud since most of the money received from the victims as the cost of finishing construction for the prior occupancy was spent as the cost of the interior construction of the relevant officetel (the cost of the string construction).

Nevertheless, the court below held the defendant.