All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

An application for compensation order for an applicant L. shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of all the facts charged of the instant case, but the lower court’s determination was erroneous by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment as delineated below.

A) The Defendant merely borrowed 1.4 billion won from the victim L to the victim in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim L, and omitted the Defendant’s marking “Seoul Central District Court” in the case number of 2014 high 49 or less in Seoul Central District Court.

Criminal facts

Since the joint successful bidder of the real estate mentioned in paragraph (1) was changed to J (the trade name before the change of the trade name of K Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “J”) or there was no promise to resell the real estate stated in paragraph (1) of the crime No. 2014 M& 49 and to deliver the proceeds of resale after the resale, etc., it is not recognized to commit fraud and deception.

B) Fraud against the victim L is not established since the Defendant explained that the Defendant would use the victim L as the price for receiving a successful bid for the O apartment, and borrowed KRW 250 million from L from the victim L.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the statements of R and Z, which is an employee of the J operated by the victim L and the victim L, and found guilty of this part of the facts charged.

C) Although there was a fact that the Defendant, on behalf of the J, participated in the auction procedure for Q 302 in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Q 302 and was awarded the said apartment in the name of J, the Defendant did not agree to receive or receive money and valuables in return therefor.

D) The Defendant was actually entitled to 1/2 of the bid bond stated in the facts constituting a crime of 2014 Gohap 263, but Y Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Y”) first promised half of the bid bond to return it to the Defendant, but did not comply with the commitment.