All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (the part on violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate in the Name of the Right Holder) are the actual owners of the instant multi-family house, and the Defendant A did not have any trust in the name of the above multi-family house with the Defendant B.

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

B. Defendant A (the fraud part) written by E the list of tenants of the instant multi-family house, and Defendant A was fully aware of the existence thereof. As such, Defendant A was unaware of the existence thereof, the said Defendant deceptioned the victim during the process of concluding the instant lease agreement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the determination on the violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. Accordingly, the lower court held that ① Defendant B did not participate in the process of purchasing, managing, and paying taxes on the above multi-family house in addition to preparing the documents related to the acquisition of obligations with respect to the instant multi-family house; ② the purchase, management, etc. of the above multi-family house appears to have led by the mother of Defendant A and Defendant B; ② if Defendant B was the true owner of the instant multi-family house and Defendant A was merely the mere management of the said multi-family house for Defendant B, the said multi-family house would not have been able to set up a plan to re-sale the said multi-family house for a short period, as stated in the prosecution by Defendant A, and ③ The instant multi-family house was originally purchased by Defendant A and K, but it was impossible to succeed to the loans to the said financial institution due to bad credit standing.