All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not deceiving the victim under the pretext of granting the victim the right to operate the restaurant as stated in the facts charged of this case or by deceiving the money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year of suspended sentence in six months for each defendant's imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants and co-defendant C of the lower judgment are recognized to have taken the victim by deceiving the victim to the effect that he would be entitled to operate the above site, even though he did not have the intent or ability to grant the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site of Daegu H 500 apartment construction site (hereinafter “the construction site of this case”), and by deceiving the victim to the effect that he would have the right to operate the restaurant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the Defendants.

1) While the construction site of this case was implemented in M while M was suspended due to M’s default, the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd., a performance guarantee company of M, conducted the public sale procedure on the project site and the buildings in the state of the project. In the public sale procedure, U.S., a sole bid and concluded a sales contract on the project site between Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. and Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd., on May 26, 201, but Defendant A was investigated into the instant case, but Defendant A received the investigation into the instant case, but he and C stated as if he had the authority to sell the instant construction site as he had the right to sell the restaurant (a investigation record No. 28 pages, 28).