All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the guilty portion of the lower judgment on erroneous facts, Defendant 1 did not have any monetary relationship to be settled between the Defendant and D around November 2016, and thus, the Defendant had the ability to transfer the ownership of the instant land at the time when the Defendant prepared a sales contract on the instant land or demanded the complainant to pay a balance in sales. Therefore, the lower court’s conviction on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment, which sentenced the lower court on unreasonable sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the part of the judgment of not guilty among the judgment of the court below on erroneous determination of facts, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million borrowed from the victim within the agreed period of time, or received no intent or ability to transfer the land of this case to the victim for the repayment of the said money. As such, the Defendant deceptioned the victim, thereby defrauding the victim of KRW 100 million.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in determining the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court is sufficiently acceptable to have convicted the Defendant of the facts constituting a crime of fraud in the balance of land, fabrication of private documents, or uttering of a falsified investigation document for reasons as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1. The Defendant consistently stated in the investigative agency to the effect that the Defendant was unable to transfer the ownership of the instant land to the victim due to the debt relationship with D’s wife. In particular, the prosecutor’s office made a real estate investment, such as D’s spouse, around 2014. However, upon being detained, all persons who received the investment, have fledd.