1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant I and the part against the judgment of the court of second instance, one set forth in Table 2 attached hereto.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles with respect to Defendant I and A, the Defendants transferred or taken over the occupant savings certificates or their status, such as the No. 4 and No. 2 attached Table 2 attached to the List of Crimes No. 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance, 4, 6, and 7. However, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty of each of the facts charged against the Defendants. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Housing Act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Housing Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing against the Defendants (Defendant BC: one year of a suspended sentence of imprisonment; two years of a fine of KRW 4 million; Defendant J; Defendant I: fine of KRW 7 million; Defendant A; and Defendant A: one year of a suspended sentence of imprisonment) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to Defendant I and A

A. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants transferred or acquired the occupant savings certificate or the status of a third party as stated in this part of the facts charged, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The judgment of this court is based on the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the records of Defendant AJ’s transfer of a deposit certificate, etc. (No. 2 attached Table 1 attached to the judgment of the second instance court), i.e., that I voluntarily prepared and paid a down payment for the purchase of the CN apartment and kept the sales contract, and that I was prosecuted on the premise that he had the right to sell this part, under the premise that he had the right to sell this part, “the right to sell in the name of AJ within the period subject to the resale restriction was sold to BR through the arrangement of AJ within the period subject to the resale restriction,” the Defendant merely arranged for resale for I, and acquired the certificate of savings of the occupants under the name of AJ.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below on this part is just and acceptable, and it is the same as the prosecutor points out.