The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A did not deceivingO, etc. as in the facts charged, and did not intend to commit fraud, the lower court convicted Defendant A by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) on Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Although Defendant B conspired with Defendant A and I, the lower court acquitted Defendant B by misunderstanding the facts, although the lower court acquitted Defendant B.

Judgment

Defendant

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, it is just to have recognized that Defendant A, as the facts charged, deceivingO, etc. as well as 400 million won of the down payment, obtained by deception.

In particular, in the instant contract (in the face 29 page of the Investigation Record), the intermediate payment of KRW 1 billion was determined as “the time of liquidation of the K legal relationship”, and as a matter of H’s responsibilities and obligations, it is clearly prescribed that “the damage company, which is liquidated the legal relationship of K within two months from the date of the contract, shall not interfere with the progress of the business by the damage company,” while recognizing that Defendant A may not resolve the liquidation problem of the legal relationship of K under the instant contract, Defendant A could not resolve the liquidation problem in dolusent manner, Defendant A can recognize the fact that he/she acquired the contract deposit of KRW 400,000 by deceiving the real estate right to implement the project by resolving the said problem in whole with theO

Defendant

A's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

Defendant A had a criminal record of the same kind, but in the trial of the party, he/she agreed with the O, which is a substantial victim, and the intention of defraudation of the instant crime is the criminal intent.