The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with labor for three years, for two years and six months, for Defendant B.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. On March 20, 2014, Defendant A, who misleads Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and sentencing) 1, sold the instant building at KRW 5 billion to Defendant C on March 20, 2014, and thereafter, Defendant C sold the instant building to the victims entirely, and Defendant A was not involved in the crime of fraud. Thus, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of part of the facts charged against the Defendant. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) and Defendant B did not participate in the crime of this case and did not have any connection with the crime, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant C was guilty of part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as Defendant C merely explained the G’s speech that he would have to pay rent of 8% of the selling price to H (hereinafter “H”) by entering the instant building, and provided such explanation to both parties. Therefore, Defendant C did not have any criminal intent for defraudation, and even though he did not have participated in the crime after he was excluded from the sales agency business on May 21, 2014, even though he was excluded from the sales agency business on the same day, the lower court convicted part of the facts charged.

(d)

The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts) knew from the beginning that G had no intention or ability to operate the English village (H) in the instant building, and even though he knew of the fact that G had no intention or ability to pay rent of about 8%, the victims.