All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant D (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) The Defendant introduced an article which is less favorable for a lessee to whom it is difficult to assert misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of fraud and attempted fraud as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the lessee paid a deposit for actual lease to the lessor, and each apartment unit (hereinafter “each apartment unit of this case”).

(2) The lower court’s judgment on the ground that the portion of the lease deposit is not a crime of fraud and attempted fraud, since it is deemed that a real lease contract, rather than a sales contract, for each apartment of this case, has been established. As such, at least the part of the lease deposit, the crime of fraud and attempted fraud is not established.

B. Defendant E (De facto mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) argued that each apartment building of this case actually has a claim for return of the security deposit against the lessee of each apartment of this case upon request of the owner, etc. of each apartment of this case. In the case of paragraph (3) of the crime in the judgment below, there is no agreement between the lessor and the lessee to waive the right to request return of the security deposit. Although each apartment owner of this case intended to conclude the contract at the time of the formation of the lease contract, at least the lessee has the intention of lease, the lessee has a legal effect as a lease contract which is not a sales contract according to the expression of intention indicated in the lease contract, and the lessee should report the right to retention in the auction procedure.

Even if there was a very low possibility of the successful bid of the apartment in question.

Therefore, since the lease contract between the owner and lessee of each apartment in this case was effective, it is not established for the crime of attempted fraud and the crime of obstruction of auction.

(b).