All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendants explained the victims about the land subject to sale on the basis of objective data, such as the “long-term Comprehensive Development Plan,” issued by the Eunpyeong-gu Office, and actually conducted the development project conducted by Pyeongtaek-gun for the surrounding areas of the Eunpyeong-gu.

In addition, the victim recommended the purchase of land from Defendant B and C, and entered into a sales contract after the return of the land.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the Defendants did not deceiving the victim was erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Each sentence imposed by the court below on the defendants (two years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order, 2 years of suspended execution in June, and 8 hours of community service order, 80 hours of community service order, 80 hours of community service order) are too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the circumstances indicated by the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court can be acknowledged that the Defendants conspired to deceive the victim and defraud the purchase price from the victim.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in the wide sense of trust and good faith in property transactions. The essence of fraud is to acquire property or property benefits by deception and to cause real property damage to the other party. It does not require that property damage should occur to the other party. In general, it does not seem to lack deception as long as it is possible in light of the general commercial practice and good faith principle.