B All appeals against the Defendant A by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

An applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the part dismissing the application for compensation among the judgment below shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant inspection (misunderstanding of facts regarding the portion not guilty by Defendant A), six parcels of land in the size of 26,671 square meters (8,067 square meters) and six parcels of land in the area of F forest land, 11,504 square meters, G field 403 square meters, G field 403 square meters, H field 347 square meters, I seedlings 10,969 square meters, G field 10,630 square meters, G field 1,630 square meters, and K field 1,818 square meters, etc.

In full view of the following: (a) Defendant A was present at the real estate intermediary establishment that entered into a contract to purchase the land; (b) Defendant B led the overall process of purchasing and selling the said land in the case of Defendant B; and (c) Defendant A was in charge of the management of funds; and (d) the victims were explained and invited to purchase the instant land; and (b) Defendant A conspired with Defendant B to induce victims.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A’s victim D and C of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the instant six parcels of land, Defendant B did not conclude that the victim D had purchased KRW 11,500 square meters of the said F forest land (3,486 square meters), and the victim C purchased KRW 11,504 square meters of the said F forest land (1,496 square meters of the total 1,938 square meters) at KRW 100,000 per square meter, or that there was no fact that the victim solicited the purchase of the instant land or purchased the instant land at KRW 100,000 per square meter, and there was no fact that the victims had accrued any monetary benefits from the victims.

Even if Defendant B said that the average purchase price of the instant land was KRW 100,000 for the victims

It can not be said that the victims are mistaken.