All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s instant parking lot lease contract was concluded on the future condition that Defendant A’s return to the president of the H Foundation. At the time, Defendant A was likely to return to the president of the H Foundation according to the result of the relevant administrative litigation, Defendant A, etc. provided an explanation to the victims of such possibility, and Defendant A, etc. provided a conclusive reference to the victims, such as “Defendant A will immediately prevail in the administrative litigation and return the parking lot of the H Foundation to the president of the H Foundation.”

Furthermore, Defendant A’s reference to Defendant A’s possibility of returning to the president of the H Foundation is merely a little exaggeration or falsity that may be accompanied by the negotiation process for concluding a contract, and thus does not constitute deception in fraud.

In addition, at the time of the conclusion of the instant parking lot lease agreement, the victims knew well that Defendant A may not return to the president of the H Foundation, taking this into account, entered the instant parking lot lease agreement as a condition of suspending the return of Defendant A’s president, and included the contents of returning the contract deposit in the event of non-performance of conditions.

The victims are fully aware of all the facts in entering into the instant parking lot lease contract, and they reach the conclusion of the contract according to their own judgment, not the instant parking lot lease contract due to the Defendants’ deception, which was caused by mistake.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the charges of this case against Defendant A by deceiving the victims, resulting in an error or omission. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts as Defendant A.