Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the guilty portion of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A's Decision 1-2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) has the intention and ability to purchase H apartment units, as stated in the judgment of Defendant A1).

In trust, only the victim was involved in D's work, and there was no intention to deceive the victim.

Despite that, the first instance court, which found Defendant A guilty of the crime No. 1 in its ruling, erred by mistake of fact.

2) The first-class sentencing for Defendant A with regard to an unfair sentencing (an offense set forth in Decision 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months, and each offense set forth in Decision 2: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four months) is too unreasonable.

B. The first deliberation sentencing on Defendant B’s Defendant B (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and three hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court and the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal are closely compared with the same reasons for appeal of the first instance court, and the first instance court also rejected Defendant A’s assertion in detail on the part of “Defendant A’s assertion and judgment as to the crime No. 1 of the judgment,” and on the part of “Defendant A’s assertion and judgment as to the crime No. 1 of the judgment.”

The first deliberation decision is just, and there is no error of law that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, Defendant A’s part of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of Defendant A was denied and did not harm the recovery of damage. However, in full view of the fact that Defendant A received a letter from the injured party in the first instance trial, the degree of participation in the crime, and the fact that he could have been punished as the crime finalized in the judgment, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing indicated in the records, such as Defendant A’s age, sex, environment, and family relationship, the first deliberation sentencing on the crime No. 1 of the judgment of Defendant A is unreasonable.