A. As to the crime of fraud as of September 13, 2017, Defendant A and Defendant A (1) asserted the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A and Defendant A (1) invested KRW 300 million in the victim K with the knowledge that the sports soil was illegal. As such, the victim K invested in the amount of KRW 300 million with the awareness that it was illegal, the victim K’s responsibility is not less

(2) As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), if the victim K did not receive the down payment or intermediate payment in order to save inheritance and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case, it can be known that Defendant A did not deceiving the victim K to complete the registration of ownership transfer of this case concerning the instant real estate, and even if Defendant A did not dispose of the instant real estate after the registration of ownership transfer of this case was completed, Defendant A did not

B) The lower court’s sentence (six months of imprisonment and four years and six months of imprisonment) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable. 2) The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor, Defendant A’s ground of appeal is as follows: (a) In a case where the part concerning fraud (1) of September 13, 2017, which was committed by Defendant A, provides property or provides labor due to illegal causes under Article 746 of the Civil Act (Performance for Illegal Causes) Article 746 of the Civil Act, the return of the benefit is not demanded

However, if the illegal cause exists only on the beneficiary, this provision shall not apply.

The crime of fraud is established, even if the provider is unable to exercise the right to claim the return against the beneficiary because it constitutes illegal consideration, provided that the beneficiary, through deception, provided the provider with the property corresponding to illegal consideration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6795 delivered on November 23, 2006). (2) The court below held that Defendant A L L to the Victim K in Articles 15 through 17 of the judgment below.