A. Defendant A1) As to the fraud of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, Defendant A failed to pay the victims the allowances agreed to by the victims due to unexpected real estate competition low-cost, and Defendant A cannot be recognized as an intentional act of fraud. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (De facto Error) did not know the business contents of the company operated by Defendant A, and did not make an investment explanation or a recommendation to the victims. Defendant B merely received a commission for real estate transactions at the request of Defendant A and received a commission. Thus, Defendant B cannot be deemed as aiding and abetting the crime of violating the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Unauthorized Collection of Stocks by Defendant A.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. The following circumstances recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., "K Project", which was implemented through the defendant A, where the victims acquired a real estate loan under their own name and invested the remainder of the loan in the Co., Ltd. or the victims made a direct investment in the above company by establishing a direct investment fund, the above company guarantees the victims to pay the principal and certain profits (for example, 8% per annum (96% per annum per annum per annum). This appears to be impossible to be realized without a rapid increase in real estate price or continuous attraction of investors, and there is no special method other than the increase in real estate price or attraction of investors with respect to the method of return of investment funds promised by the above defendant.

Furthermore, the above defendant, by means of a similar way in 2007, deceiving the victims to give high-amount profits to them, and acquired money.