A. Defendant 1) When preparing a mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and a written promissory note and mortgage contract, the Defendant did not bear the obligation equivalent to KRW 1 billion with respect to C and D, and the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that there is no credibility in the statements of D and G, etc., which seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized.

1) The Defendant, AG, and H are South Korea, and C is the spouse of AG, and C was a child D (the name before the opening of the name: E) between AG and BG, and the Defendant was the buyer. (2) On April 30, 2003, the Defendant purchased the purchase price of KRW 57 million from J and AF for the land of the J share (land 326/657, building 132/238.02), from among the buildings on the land of 657m2 and the building on the land of the J (land 326/657, building 132/657, building 132/238.02), 831m2, Sinsung-si, Y-si, and 1957m2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the above land”) with the total land of KRW 570 million.

(3) The Defendant was in charge of the entire process of the instant contract from the date of the instant contract to the date of payment of the price. On the other hand, C transferred the seller J to the seller’s addressee KRW 57 million on the day of the contract, and KRW 10 million on May 6, 2003, and paid KRW 270 million on May 12, 2003 and May 15, 2003 as the purchase price of the instant contract by withdrawing KRW 270 million on May 12, 2003, and paying KRW 70 million on May 19, 2003, and paid KRW 10 million on May 26, 2003 as the purchase price through the Defendant’s purchase price. < Amended by Act No. 6853, May 30, 2003>