The part concerning Defendant C in the first and second original judgments shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of each of the Defendants (Defendant A: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment; 8 months of imprisonment; 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor of the first judgment and 2 years of imprisonment of the second judgment; 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor of the defendant AU: 3 years and 6 months; 3 years and 3 years and 3 months of imprisonment with prison labor; 3 years of imprisonment; 3 years of Defendant CE: imprisonment with prison labor; 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor; 3 months of Defendant CI;

B. Although a prosecutor (Defendant B) misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant B’s act of filing a complaint as if Defendant B had acquired the above apartment house by deceiving the F apartment house G in the name of Suwon-gu, Busan, by using it as a loan fraud, and even after the registration of ownership transfer under A’s name, the act constitutes a false accusation, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of this part of the charges, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too un

2. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, prior to the judgment on the ex officio decision on the grounds for appeal by Defendant C.

Defendant

C Concerning the first and second original judgments, each of them was sentenced, and the above defendant filed an appeal against them, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the two appeals cases.

Since each crime of the original judgment and the second judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, among the first judgment and the second judgment, the part against Defendant C cannot be maintained as it is.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant B

A. On August 9, 2016, Defendant B did not intend to file a transfer registration with BK of the victim even if he/she was transferred to the name of the F apartment G head in the Busan Young-gu, Busan, the 15 Busan, the public service center of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office of the public prosecutor's office of the 15 Busan, and “Defendant B and D, the defendant who was the defendant, had been transferred to the name of the F apartment G head in the Suwon-gu, Busan, and the above apartment is registered immediately