The judgment below

Among them, I reverse the part of the crime inundations Nos. 2 through 5 related frauds among the prosecution table.

Defendant .

1. The court below acknowledged the Defendant guilty of the reduction of the charges Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 4 among the annexed crime list of this case among the facts charged in this case, and sentenced the Defendant for one year and six months, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of unfair sentencing with respect to the part of the annexed crime list (public prosecutor) 1 and 4. The Defendant appealed on the whole guilty part on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing with respect to the whole guilty part. The prosecutor did not appeal on the part Nos. 1 of the annexed crime list (public prosecutor’s office), but appealed on the part Nos. 4 of the annexed crime list (public prosecutor’s office list) on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, on the ground of the remaining facts charged except No. 1 of the annexed crime list (public prosecutor’s

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the part No. 1 of the attached crime sight table (public prosecutor's office) among the facts charged in this case is determined not guilty and excluded from the scope of the trial of this court, and only the remaining facts charged (related to No. 2 through No. 5 in the attached crime sight table (public prosecutor

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant obtained a direct purchase price of 25 million won from the purchaser I on October 17, 2007 with regard to the sale and purchase of the RP land in Gyeonggi-gu, and acquired a claim of 25 million won against I, and thereby acquired a claim of 25 million won with regard to I, but it is sufficiently recognized that the court below recognized that only acquired a claim of 20 million won in the same amount.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. Ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.