The judgment below

The remainder except the non-guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(b).

The lower court acquitted the victim C of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case and convicted the remainder of the charges.

Since the part of innocence which was not appealed by the prosecutor due to only the defendant's appeal against the conviction has become final and conclusive by the expiration of the period of appeal, the scope of trial in the trial shall be limited to the remaining part except

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the person who actually purchased D Apartment 406, 1806, 1806 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the defendant's government from the mistake of facts is W, the crime of fraud against G, which is merely the purchaser under the contract, is not established.

At the time of the conclusion of the sales contract for the apartment of this case, the victim WW decided to first return the lease deposit to the Z of the tenant, and the defendant was also unable to perform the obligation to cancel the lease registration in the name of the AP on the wind that fails to perform the obligation of prior performance.

In addition, since the defendant did not agree to cancel the above lease registration at the same time as the conclusion of the contract for sale and purchase, there is no fact of deceiving the victim W as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

With respect to the fraud of the victim G among the facts charged in the instant case at the trial of the ex officio judgment prosecutor, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the following changes as to the facts charged in the instant case. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment.

The above fraud and the fraud of the victim J and L, which were found guilty at the court below, should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, the above defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to adjudication, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.