Of the judgment of the court below, the part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant L shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

The first instance court's judgment on the scope of this court's trial is not guilty on the part of the facts charged against Defendant A, and all the remaining facts charged against the above Defendant were convicted. Since only the above Defendant appealed on the guilty part and the above acquittal portion was separated and confirmed after the lapse of the appeal period, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the part of the judgment below on the guilty against Defendant A and the part on Defendant L and N.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts: The name of the defendant is omitted and only indicated as "the defendant" in the part of the defendants' assertion and judgment as to the fraud of the 2015 Gohap320 case in the judgment of the first instance court.

The L has concluded a sales contract to purchase the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul 502 BZ as the intermediation of L.

The Defendant purchased the above real estate from L to the end that “the short-term economic benefits may accrue if he purchased a loan that requires electricity by means of a bank loan, etc., and then concludes a contract at the market price of neighboring real estate lease.” As such, the Defendant was immediately required to pay the existing debt at the time, and did not know about how much the purchase price was paid accurately.

At the time of the purchase of the above real estate, the Defendant did not look at the actual internal structure and did not hear that there was an illegal extension. However, only the explanation of 14 square meters was given.

When the registration of ownership transfer has not been completed, the Defendant concluded a old-end lease contract with L, delivered the deposit received from the lessee to the seller under the remaining name, and changed the registration of ownership transfer to L.

After that, there was no contact between the tenant and the tenant, and there was no contact with the tenant.

Since the Defendant entirely delegated the lease contract to L, and did not know of the illegal extension, it is impossible to inform the lessee of it.