All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A had been aware of the establishment of a provisional attachment or mortgage on forest land 661 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) located in Si/Gun/Gu, and thus, Defendant A was unaware of the establishment of a provisional attachment or mortgage on the instant forest land located in Si/Gun/Gu. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, although there was no intention to commit fraud (the Defendant A disputes only the illegal sentencing in the petition of appeal and the statement of the grounds for appeal). (2) The punishment (the penalty amounting to five million won) that the lower court sentenced Defendant A to the illegal sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the confession of the facts charged in the original trial is made by mistake by mistake with the knowledge that Defendant A’s defense counsel would be able to defend himself.

Defendant

B The fact that the victims did not notify the fact that the provisional seizure and the right to collateral security was established with respect to the forest of this case, but the provisional seizure was applied for the provisional seizure in order to receive unpaid wages, etc., but the provisional seizure was not a document

not making a provisional seizure

It was believed that a provisional attachment was not made, and the right to collateral security was merely a job of introducing real estate buyers, and it was not known that the right to collateral security was established on the forest of this case due to the failure to verify the specific legal relationship.

Therefore, Defendant B did not have any intention to commit fraud because he was unaware of the establishment of provisional seizure and mortgage on the forest of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts