A. Defendant 1) As seen below, Defendant 1 did not deceiving victims as stated in each criminal facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant did not have any intent to commit fraud. Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all of them. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. A) At the time when the Defendant ordered blasting construction works, the victim and the Defendant were given explanation of construction work from E (hereinafter “E”) who is a contractor as a partnership business relationship, and thus, the Defendant could not be deemed as deceiving the victim.

In addition, since the defendant paid the victim a sum of KRW 17.4 million as principal and interest with respect to KRW 17.4 million borrowed from the victim as security, it shall be deemed that the defendant had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. The Defendant: (a) purchased the land located in Asan City for KRW 450 million; (b) stated the purchase price of KRW 570 million in a sales contract; and (c) considered to be able to realize gains from KRW 120 million in consultation with the seller to register the purchase price under the sales contract; and (d) considered that some of the above land was incorporated into a road and able to gain profits equivalent to the compensation amount.

The above land was purchased on the premise that the victim sought a loan from a bank and the victim was well aware that there was no fund or no credit for the loan, and made an investment in order to obtain a high profit.

However, the borrower, who was the victim, refused to enter into a contract on a sudden basis, and the defendant borrowed bonds of KRW 500 million as collateral and purchased the above land.