A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A was actually being promoted with the K New Construction Project, which was in progress with Co-Defendant B, and the possibility of sexual intercourse was high, so there was no intention or ability to proceed with the construction contract.

No one shall be deemed to have no intention or ability to terminate the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage established in the collateral owned by the victim or the Dispute Resolution Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "victim Co., Ltd."), and the victimized Co., Ltd is also taking a risk of causing a high-rate investment profit and does not provide the damaged Co., Ltd. as a collateral by deceiving the Defendants.

(2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was carried out by the Defendant, but it was impossible for the Defendant to promote the construction contract at the time of the instant provision of security, and the Defendant was willing and ability to promote the construction contract at the time of the instant provision of security, and the Co-Defendant A and theO attempted to acquire money by deceiving the damaged company, which is a security offerer, as in the facts charged, and the Defendant did not participate in the deception, and the purpose of using it in the street funds is not related to the disposal act

(2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendants recognized the Defendants’ deception and disposal of the said property by deceiving the damaged company as stated in the facts charged without notifying the victimized company of the fact that the construction contract for the new construction of K would not normally proceed, without being aware of the fact that the Defendants could not normally proceed with the construction contract at the time.