All parts against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 1-A and 1-B of the judgment of the court.

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts) Defendant A1’s breach of trust against the victim’sO and N (Article 1(a) of the lower judgment’s judgment) notified the victims of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the instant real estate around July 201 to AF who represented the victims at the time of concluding a sales contract with the victim’sO and N on the instant real estate. The victims were not only the persons introduced by the F to the Defendant, but the victim’s her mother was the victim’s her mother, and the victim N was the victim’s her father’s her mother. As such, there was considerable reason to believe that AF notified the victims of the said fact.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of breach of trust.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The Defendant committed fraud against the Victim AF (No. 1 and No. 2 in the crime list No. 1-b of the judgment below in the judgment below) (No. 1-b) paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 5 million that the Defendant received from the damaged person three times from August 24, 201 to January 2012 as the deposit money for real estate sales contract in three times as the purchase price for the land. ② Around December 2, 2011, the Defendant had the ability and intent to repay the sum of KRW 4.5 million from the damaged person at the time of borrowing the sum of KRW 4.5 million from the damaged person, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire it.

The judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C) Since the Defendant, around October 201, notified the victim of the fact that the right to collateral security was established on the instant real estate at the time of concluding a sales contract with the victim for the instant real estate on or around October 2011, the Defendant did not have the intention to defraud the Defendant.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty shall be erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.