The defendant is innocent. The defendant is innocent.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) In light of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of selling the instant hotel, notified the fact that he had a third party claiming the right to transfer the instant hotel fixtures, the victim purchased the instant hotel, no deception by omission is recognized since the duty of disclosure is not recognized in accordance with the principle of good faith. 2) The Defendant did not have any reason to notify the circumstance that the Defendant, as the owner of the instant hotel fixtures, sold it to the victim, was the third party claiming the transfer of the said fixtures, and therefore, the intention of deception is not recognized.

B. Even if a person is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. On May 22, 2013, the summary of the facts charged and Co-defendant A sold F hotel buildings and land to H, an agent of the victim G, the victim G, at the F hotel Lane in Gangseo-si around May 2, 2013. On November 9, 2009, the Defendant: (a) provided 42-person television in the creditor I’s guest room as collateral for transfer; (b) 30-person television in the above hotel room; (c) 29-person television; (d) 34-year furnitures; (c) 34-year furnitures; (d) 34-year furnitures; (e) 1-years; (e) 1-factorys; (e) 200 millions; (e) 3-years and 700-years of household electronic equipment, including 300 millions of household and 300-years of household and 700-years of household.

However, from the perspective of the victim, the defendant and A correspond to the important considerations in calculating the sales price of the hotel of this case and paying the sales price. The hotel fixtures of this case are as above I.