Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant

B.

A. misunderstanding of facts (1) - The Defendants did not call to the victim H of the first crime of the 201 Go-Ma1795 Case No. 1795 as indicated in the judgment of the court below that they would be able to change the purpose of the land from “agricultural and forest area” to “control area”, and the 50 million won received from the victim is not paid as the expenses necessary for the change of the purpose of use, but as the intermediary fee.

(2) Defendant A- In the 201 Highest 1795 Case No. 2 (Misappropriation related to AV forest) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, there was no fact that the victim said that he would obtain the approval or permission of the warehouse site by cancelling the registration of provisional disposition prohibiting disposal of the land completed. It is only the fact that the victim did not receive the remaining money from the victim and the victim did not have financial standing, and that the victim did not have any financial standing, talks in advance about the situation of the victim, received a loan from a financial

The contents of various special agreements among the sales contract are borne by the victim, who is the buyer, and the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts that the victim cannot be determined as the non-performance of obligation.

In addition, the cancellation of provisional disposition registration or the establishment of mortgage is conducted with the consent of the victim, so there is no intention of breach of trust.

(3) Defendant B - The fact that the ownership of the land was not transferred to the victim as promised to commit the crime of the 2012 Highest 262 Incident as indicated in the lower judgment, but this is merely a failure to perform due to the failure to buy and sell real estate, and there is no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (the defendant A's imprisonment with prison labor for two years and the defendant B's imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio Defendant A’s grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on Defendant A’s ex officio. According to the records, the case is 2012 Godan1020 decided in the judgment of the court below.