The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

, however, the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 23, 2015, Defendant A was dissatisfied with the lower judgment and filed an appeal, and on March 12, 2015, was served with the notification of the receipt of the trial records, and the Defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days from the notification, and the Defendant’s petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Fraud, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim in collusion with A and B, and did not have any intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

B) The violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (hereinafter “instant housing”) No. H and 101 (hereinafter “instant housing”).

The clients against A and B are not the Korea Land and Housing Corporation. The Defendant did not commit an act against A and B by false words or other means with respect to important matters relating to the transaction of the instant housing. 2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (2 years of suspended execution in August and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Although the Defendant’s defense counsel’s statement of grounds of appeal dated April 6, 2015 and the defense counsel’s statement of April 23, 2015, which were submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel for the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, contain the allegation of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and that there was no intention to commit fraud, and that the sentence of imprisonment (the probation period of two years and the community service order of 120 hours in August) of the lower court is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable, the above assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles can not be a legitimate ground of appeal as the assertion raised after the lapse of the period for filing the grounds of appeal, and there is no reason to view ex officio.

Therefore, a decision to dismiss an appeal by a defendant should be made in accordance with Articles 361-4(1) and 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as a judgment is rendered on the appeal by a defendant C, the dismissal of appeal shall not be separately decided.