The judgment below

Among the defendants A and B, each part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be around May 29, 2014 to the victim'sO in its judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of the judgment of the court below (2015 senior 2902 senior 2015 senior hereinafter referred to as Defendant A1) 1 crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) 1 attempted to reach an agreement in criminal cases of victimO, and actually has formed an agreement with the CJ

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B) Crimes Nos. 3 and 5 in the holding of the lower judgment (2015 order 3538, 2016 order order 1597), the Defendant was not a party to the sales of an officetel, but was involved in the brokerage process, and the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the officetel sold by the Defendant B was a non-exclusive sales fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

C) Some of the crimes of Article 7 of the holding of the lower judgment (Crimes around January 20, 2016 and around April 8, 2016) (Crimes around January 20, 2016 and around April 5, 2016) in the judgment of the lower court) (Crimes around April 2016, 5095) committed a crime of violation of a certified judicial intermediary

Therefore, among crimes No. 7 of the decision of the court below, the fact that the mediation promise was made on January 20, 2016 and the demand of KRW 2 million on April 8, 2016 is not established.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (crimes Nos. 1, 2, and 7 as indicated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and crimes Nos. 3 and 5 as indicated in the lower judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Fact-misunderstanding [the 6th crime (2016 senior group 1597) of the judgment below] Defendant was employed by BM and was employed by BM and was in charge of construction work since he entered AU Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AU”) around February 20, 2010. Since the situation was only three months after he entered around May 2010 at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the details related to the sale in lots (in particular, circumstances concerning trust registration) or BM and others.