There is no fraudulent fact.

The victim voluntarily attempted to sell three bonds of this case for the purpose of the lease business other than resale. Thus, there is no relation between the defendants' acts and the contract for sale by the victim.

Defendant

A, under the judgment that it is helpful for the victim, the sales contract for the three bonds of the real estate of this case was arranged, and there was no intention of defraudation.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the records, the judgment of the court below, the defendants, even though they are aware that at least the defendants could not resell the real estate 3 bonds of this case and return the down payment to the victims, and thereby allowing the victims to enter into a sales contract with the selling company, thereby receiving the down payment.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

① The real estate in this case was unsold at the rate of 1/3 at the time, and only when entering into a contract for the instant real estate, the sales company either paid or paid the commission per unit to the intermediaries at KRW 7 million. As such, if the real estate unsold in lots was sold in lots, the commission per unit is paid. As such, from the standpoint of the Defendants mediating the instant real estate, it is more beneficial to resell the real estate unsold in lots first than the unsold real estate.

In full view of the fact that there is no reason to purchase the instant real estate from the standpoint of those who want to purchase the instant real estate, the Defendants seems to have sufficiently recognized that it may be difficult for the Defendants to resell the instant real estate.

(2)