All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal: ① In relation to the fraud of the land at Sejong City, this part of the facts charged does not constitute a joint purchase relationship. This part of the facts charged does not mean that “Defendant A deceiving the purchase price of the land at Sejong City as if it were jointly purchased from the original owner.” Even if the actual legal relationship of the land transaction at Sejong City was purchased from the original owner and sold it to the victim, the actual legal relationship between the Defendant A and the original owner was actively or indirectly deceiving the relationship, so long as the Defendant knew the original owner of the purchase of the land at Sejong City with the original owner. As long as the victim knew the original owner of the purchase of the land at Sejong City, the lower court did not purchase the land at Sejong City without relation if the Defendant knew of the situation of the resale to the victim at the price equal to four times the purchase from the original owner, and in relation to the fraud of the land at Sejong City, this part of the facts charged did not directly mislead the Defendant, even though the Defendant had purchased the land at the time of purchase and sale of the land at Sejong City.”

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendants conspired to purchase forest at a low price from the original owner, they did not inform the victim K of the original purchase price and intended to obtain the difference by deceiving the victim and receiving a low purchase price from the victim.

1 Fraudulent Defendants on the land in Sejong-si are Gangnam-gu Seoul around September 18, 2012.