All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) and H and I do not recognize the criminal intent of deceiving the Defendants because they believe that H and I would normally transfer the ownership of the instant officetel, even if H and I did not purchase the instant officetel, and thus, they would not have committed fraud.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment.

The court below found that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) Defendant A was required to purchase the officetel of the D building from the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and H and I filed a criminal complaint against the F, etc. on the ground that F invested funds to F through the Defendants but failed to recover the investment amount (Evidence Nos. 168, 812, etc.); and (ii) the sales contract for the officetel N of D Buildingtel (Evidence Nos. 44, etc.) of the D Co., Ltd. of the D Co., Ltd. of the D Co., Ltd. of the D Co., Ltd. does not specify the object of sale; and (iii) the area of the object indicated by the D Co., Ltd. of the D Co., Ltd. of the D Co., Ltd. was indicated to the effect that the officetel Nos. 1 and the Defendant stated to the effect that the officetel Nos. 1 was not the seller’s ownership or right transfer registration at the time of the D Co.