The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants received a request from the victim E to dispose of the real estate as soon as possible by the method of recognition work (if the seller sells the goods to a broker at a certain amount, only the amount determined by the broker is sold to the seller and the difference is brought to the seller at the expense of recognition work). After selling the real estate, the part exceeding KRW 700 million, which was the amount delegated by the victim, was acquired as the expense of recognition work. Thus, the Defendants do not receive money by embezzlement of the victim’s money or by deceiving the victim.

B. Each sentence (one year and three months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants and the victims have delegated or consented to sell real estate by the method of recognition work, as alleged by the Defendants. Therefore, all of the facts charged in the judgment below can

① Even based on Defendant B’s prosecutor’s statement, (a) the victim does not have to be aware of the sale of real estate, such as the recognition work expense or the upup contract, and therefore, at the time of concluding the price agreement between the Defendants and the victim, the victim did not have given a specific term to the amount of sale, but the Defendants notified the victim of the approximate price of real estate and sold at an appropriate amount. (b) Defendant B did not notify the amount of 254,00,000 won out of the total purchase price of real estate disposed of. (c) Defendant B did not inform the victim of the amount of the above recognition work expense and received by Defendant B of the amount of 110,000,000 won.