The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant H ① only responded to himself in the course of examining the witness of the case in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (hereinafter “instant perjury case”) against the Busan District Court Branch Branch 2012 Gohap233 (hereinafter “instant perjury case”), and there was no false statement contrary to memory.

② As to the fraud, the Defendant had the intent or ability to purchase the apartment of this case at the time, and had different opinions with respect to the acquisition of the collateral security obligation, and failed to perform the sales contract. Therefore, the Defendant did not intend to acquire the apartment of this case.

B. As to Defendant A1’s fraud around March 22, 2010, around March 2, 2010, the Defendant believed that Defendant H had the intent or ability to pay the purchase price, and thus, there was no intention to acquire the purchase price. (2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: 6 months and the second instance court’s imprisonment: 2 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the case of this court 2013No2272, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the case of this court 2013No2615, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the proceedings for the oral argument. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the crime of fraud against the Defendant A and the crime of fraud of the court of second instance, in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, should be sentenced to a single sentence within the extent that aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so the part against the Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any more.

(However, even if there are reasons to reverse the judgment of the court below ex officio, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, and this is also examined. 3. We will examine the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts.