All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim D, the representative director of the Co., Ltd. C (hereinafter “C”) with respect to the instant case, 2019 high group 53 cases, including Defendant A1’s mistake of fact, concluded a sales contract only with Z among the co-owners, and paid the purchase price. It is difficult to view that the said sales contract was genuine.

The victim paid KRW 100 million to AI who is not an employee of the certified architect office, forged Busan Metropolitan City public documents, and then delivered the above documents to the defendant, and the project in this case seems to have no problem about the authorization and permission.

Therefore, it should be deemed that the injured person had attempted to defraud 26 billion won from the Defendants by deceiving the Defendants.

In relation to the possibility of raising funds, the Defendant merely believed the horses of Defendant B, and did not have any means to raise funds in the absence of the above-mentioned reasons on the part of the victim, and thus, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to procure 26 billion won.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention to commit fraud.

It is reasonable to view it.

According to the statement of the victim, since the money of this case is kept by the defendant from the injured party, it does not constitute a crime of fraud even if the defendant's use of the money constitutes embezzlement.

B) Regarding the 2019 Highest 1551 case, the Defendant only lent only the name of the contractor to Defendant B, and the Defendant does not have any fact that the victim I met.

Therefore, the defendant did not have conspired to obtain money from the defendant B in advance, and there was a criminal intent to obtain money from the defendant to the victim or to obtain money from the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) 2019 order 53 cases.