A. The Defendant’s appeal 1) misunderstanding of facts did not receive money from the victims by specifying the purpose of using it as a way to repay to the Korea Housing Guarantee Corporation as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. In addition, there is no reason for the Defendant to pay KRW 10 million to the victims as stated in the instant facts charged. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Defendant’s conviction, and there is an error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding the fact that the Defendant was guilty. The Defendant used the sales contract brokerage business of the victims as well as multiple buyers (the buyer of the sales contract; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the apartment of this case at the same time in the process of smoothly handling the entire sales contract brokerage business at the same time.

Since the defendant tried to return the money received from the victims by financing another money later, the defendant does not have the intention to obtain unlawful profits.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and eighty hours of community service is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s reasoning for the appeal by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant alleged that there was no receipt of money from the victims by specifying the purpose of the compensation for the Korea Housing Guarantee Corporation as stated in the facts charged of this case. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① DNA collected the money from the victims to the court below, is consistent from the investigative agency to the court below.