The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant and the second judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case against the mistake of fact was erroneous by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as follows, and by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion

1) The facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below in Article 1 (1) A) The defendant was found to have worked in the Cheongdae in the past, and there was only a fact that the old gate in 2006, stating such circumstances to the victim F while making the old gate in 2006, and there was no fact that such talk had been made around February 2009, and there was no fact that K apartment was called to have the head of the reconstruction association.

B) It was true that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the victim F around February 2009. However, it was the fact that there was an adequate apartment sale, and it did not belong to the victim F that the Defendant would buy and sell the proceeds by leaving the loan and selling them. (ii) The Defendant paid KRW 400 million received from the victim F to the O as the head of the headquarters of the sales agency, who was the head of the sales agency, and the Defendant did not deceiving the said victim. (iii) The Defendant did not deceiving the said victim.

3) The criminal facts of the judgment of the court below in Article 1 (3) of the crime of the first instance are that the defendant was trying to purchase a rental apartment in trust and did not sell it, and thus failed to comply with the promise to the victim F. The defendant was not deceiving the above victim. The criminal facts of the judgment of the court below in Article 1 (4) of the criminal facts of the first instance are that the defendant was invested in money from the victim F. In order to purchase an apartment unit terminated during the initial share of the association members. Since the defendant purchased 133 202 units and completed the ownership transfer registration in the name of the court, he purchased 13 202 units in lieu of the initial scheduled share of 133 202 units and completed the ownership transfer registration in the name

B. Meritorious of legal principle