Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The defendant is 60,0120,000 won to AH who is an applicant for compensation.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The argument in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal shall be examined within the scope of supplement in case of appeal.

Sentence 1 of the first instance court (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the public prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

Defendant

The fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles is that the defendant acquired the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (Fraud in the first instance judgment) and 500 million won in the name of the sale agency deposit, and the part of the fraudulentation of KRW 500 million in the name of the apartment construction project (hereinafter referred to as the "new apartment construction project of this case") for the land outside Jin-si Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "the new apartment construction project of this case") entered into a contract on December 20, 205 and secured 50% of the business right, and around April 14, 2006 of D Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the "D") operated by the defendant, there was no special difficulty in performing its duties, and at the time D enters into the sale agency contract with M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "M") and

D concluded a contract agreement with the SJ Development Y chief on March 2006.

M The sale agency contract in the name of M is prepared in order to secure the payment of the security deposit for the sale agency contract from N, if there is no fund in the process of concluding the original contract with U.S.

The N on the part of defraudation of KRW 1.9 billion in the name of the land purchase fund is an investment in the new apartment construction project of this case under the condition that 30% of the shares in the new apartment construction project of this case, not delivery is a condition for land purchase

On December 20, 2005, the Defendant entered into a contract with W on December 20, 2005 for acquisition of business ownership in relation to the new apartment construction project, and entered into a new contract for acquisition of business ownership with W on May 10, 2006 by changing the terms and conditions of the contract.

The maximum building of the apartment building project of this case was authorized and permitted, and the construction company obtains the authorization and permission at the time of the PF loan.