Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (A) misunderstanding of facts against the lower judgment (A) Defendant purchased the instant road site from the victim, and paid the purchase price thereof.

There is no act of deception.

B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one month of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The lower court’s punishment (two months of imprisonment) against the second instance judgment is too unreasonable and unfair.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Prosecutor prosecuted Defendant A (the lower court’s judgment) by misapprehending the legal doctrine (No. 2017 senior group 1978) (limited to the case) that the Defendants committed the crime of fraud in collusion.

However, the lower court recognized Defendant A’s sole criminal conduct on the grounds of a crime entirely different from the facts charged, and did not render a separate verdict of innocence for the crime of fraud by public offering.

This is contrary to the principle of non-defluence stipulated in article 246 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) was so unfased so far as the Defendant B and C did not purchase the instant road site from the victim, and thus, was aware that the said Defendants did not have any right to seek the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant road site against the victim, or could at least recognize the said fact.

Based on the different premise, the lower court acquitted the above Defendants.

2. The part as to Defendant B and C

A. The first instance court found Defendant B and C not guilty on the grounds that the lower court found Defendant B and C as follows.

① The fact that A was aware that “A purchased the instant road site from D” was clearly false is as seen earlier.

In addition, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, D at the time of voluntary auction on the instant housing site.