The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts is the victim H (name R after the opening of the name) of the instant facts charged by the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged of this case, 301 J building in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

(2) The transfer contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “transfer contract of this case”)

(2) While Co-defendant B introduced the commercial building of this case as a premium for the commercial building and delivered it to the victim, Co-Defendant B had never known that there was no premium for the commercial building of this case, and Co-Defendant B led to the conclusion of the transfer contract of this case and the Defendant did not participate in it. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Each of the above punishments imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts based on the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court, that is, the following circumstances: (i) K, stated in the instant transfer agreement as the transferor of the commercial building right, is not the actual transferor, but was the same North Korean defectors as the Defendant; (ii) Co-Defendant B introduced the Defendant to the victim; and (iii) falsely stated that “A was the victim of the instant transfer agreement, who was a child of the same division, and that K has been unable to attend and take place as his wife because there are many bodies,” and the Defendant also led the victim to believe such remarks, thereby leading the Defendant to the instant crime; and (iii) the Defendant was asserting that Co-Defendant B led the instant crime, but the Co-Defendant B was consistent from the investigation agency to the court below.