All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) When the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles requested the victim to stand joint and several sureties, the Defendant would pay the Defendant with the commission if the sale of the land such as Ma, etc. (hereinafter “M land”) which the Defendant was acting as a broker is already discovered.

The E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) promises to pay the money with the money in custody (hereinafter referred to as “deposit”) paid with the farmland preservation charge at the time of harmony.

There is no fact stated.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to commit the crime of fraud.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant would pay the victim money with the money deposited in the custody, not MM land sale fees.

and there was no authority with respect to the refund of the money in custody.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(1) If the representative H sells land M, the Defendant shall pay a fee of KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and the sale of land shall not be a case.

Even if the amount of custody was to be paid to the defendant

The argument is asserted.

However, there is no objective material to recognize this arrangement.

② H was an operator of the above company in connection with M land development, not the E representative director.

N is merely a person who has invested approximately KRW 1.4 billion in N. H decided to have the Defendant dispose of land in order to recover the said investment, thereby allowing the Defendant to receive money.