The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A As shown in the facts charged, Defendant A did not deceive the victim E as stated in the facts charged, and Defendant A did not pay money to the victim E, and Defendant A did not have conspired with Defendant B, but did not have any fact, the lower court convicted the Defendant A by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the fact.

Defendant

B Although Defendant B did not commit fraud as shown in the facts charged, the lower court convicted Defendant B by misunderstanding the facts and convicted Defendant B.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is that Defendant A is a licensed real estate agent, and Defendant B is between Defendant A and private money.

On January 6, 2006, the Defendants: (a) operate the real estate brokerage office in Suwon-si, Suwon-si; (b) using the knowledge of the fact that the cost of living countermeasures can be supplied at the compensation level for the cost of living countermeasures to the employees such as farming and livestock industry in the development area in relation to the housing site development project implemented by the Gyeonggi-do local public corporation; (c) using the fact that there was a right to purchase the cost of living countermeasures, as if there was a right to purchase the cost of living countermeasures, and (d) using the false statement to the victim E; and (e) around January 6, 2006, G engaged in the fish farming in the above real estate brokerage office in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was not determined to receive the cost of living countermeasures; (b) by occupying the land of Suwon-si without permission, and thus, (c) it is possible to receive compensation for the cost of living countermeasures under the name of the victim 200 days after purchasing the right to purchase the cost of living under the name of the victim 160 days.