The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;

A. In fact, the Defendants informed the victims of the fact that the right to sell the G apartment is a land trust rather than H, and the victims knew the same fact and concluded a sales contract with the Korean land trust. There is no fact that H did not fully pay the purchase price or sell the above apartment, and there is no fact that H had the right to sell the apartment in the process of concluding the sales contract, under the premise that H had the right to sell the apartment, would have the intention to discount the purchase price directly or would have the right to receive the sale price.

Each of the 64.8 million won paid by the victims to H is not a sale price but a loan. However, the Defendants agreed to lend the above money from the victims and return the proceeds therefrom to the victims so that the victims can acquire an apartment in a low-level sale price by using the funds of 60% of the normal sale price. In relation to the Korean land trust, it does not mean that the normal sale price is discounted by 60% of the normal sale price in the relationship with the Korean land trust, and the victims are aware of all the same facts. As such, the Defendants deceiving the victims as stated in the facts charged regarding apartment discount and thereby, did not deliver the victims each of 64.8 million won as the sale price to H Co., Ltd., which was erroneous.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that both damages caused by the instant case’s unfair sentencing were recovered, and the victims expressed their intent that they not want to punish the Defendants, the lower court’s sentence, which sentenced the Defendants to a suspended sentence of two years in October, is too unreasonable.