All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is consistent with the empirical rule to deem that the victim F was aware of the fact that he/she believed and believed Defendant B, and made a provisional registration, transfer registration, etc. for five parcels of land and buildings owned by the victim, such as Dobong-gu Seoul, M, N,O, P, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and that he/she was aware of it.

Defendant B did not directly deception the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case.

Even if Defendant A deceptions the victim through the Defendant, the Defendants can be recognized as deception by public offering.

In addition, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that Defendant A took part in the Defendant B’s crime and obtained KRW 130 million in return. Thus, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the area where H land 298 square meters (hereinafter “H land”) belongs to the victim F, who was owned by the victim F in his wife G, is redeveloped, and thus, the victim’s right to move into the zone is entitled to move into the zone. On March 20, 2007, around 2007, Defendant B transferred the 149/298 shares of H land (hereinafter “the first transaction share”) in the name of Defendant B’s son (hereinafter “the first transaction share”), but the mortgagee of H land is a cooperative in the Gwangju District Livestock Industry (hereinafter “Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives”), and the maximum amount of the claim is KRW 210 million and the actual amount of debt is KRW 160 million,000,000,000 from the right to move into the zone at the time of redevelopment.

Since then, around July 31, 2007, Defendant B obtained the registration of transfer in the name of J and I, an son of Defendant B, on the ground that Defendant B paid the said right to collateral security (hereinafter “the second right to collateral security”) to Defendant B and Defendant B paid the claim KRW 300 million of the claim held by the injured party.

Defendant .