All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In light of the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant thought that he could transfer a legitimate right to the destroyed building of this case to a sales contract certificate for the destroyed building that existed in the redevelopment area of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area (hereinafter “the destroyed building of this case”), and concluded a contract with the victim AE for the acquisition of the destroyed building of this case. As such, the Defendant only did not deceiving the victim AE, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

Imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the court of unfair sentencing on the defendant is too unlimited and unfair.

(1) On December 16, 2014, the first day after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant asserted the “unfair form of punishment” as the grounds for appeal. The Defendant’s defense counsel did not state the “unfair form of punishment” in the statement of grounds for appeal filed as of December 2, 2014. On March 3, 2015, the summary of the pleadings submitted as of March 3, 2015, which was submitted after the third day of the trial, stated the specific reasons for the “unfair form of punishment.” Since the amount acquired by selling the destroyed building of this case in the name of 27 persons for mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is attributed to 27 co-owners or co-owners and co-owners, if the Defendant disposed of the proceeds without the consent of other co-owners or co-owners and co-owners, then the Defendant and Co-owners were found to have been aware that they did not have the authority to dispose of the above proceeds.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

1.2.2