All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing of Sentencing) 1 / misunderstanding of facts [as to each fraud crime of 1067 senior group 2014 senior group 1067 (the judgment of the court below) and 307 senior group 307 senior group 2015 senior group 307 (the judgment of the court below)] as to the crime of 1 in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A was under legitimate delegation by C at the time. As to the crime of 9 in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A did not directly deceive the victim BC, and Defendant A acquired money by fraud.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, among the judgment of the court below that recognized the establishment of a crime of fraud against Defendant A, there is an error of mistake of fact in the 2014 High Order 1067 and 2015 High Order 307 High Order 307.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C [misunderstanding the facts as to the fraud crime listed in paragraph (8) of the criminal facts indicated in the judgment of the court below among the crime of fraud 291, which was held in the judgment of the court below] Defendant C did not have been involved in the crime of defraudation by Defendant A, such as conspiracy with Defendant A as stated in the judgment of the court below, but there was an error of mistake as to the part of the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant C to be constituted a crime of fraud.

2. Determination

A. (1) On April 26, 2014, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A’s appeal 1) as to the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, was heard that Defendant A’s fraud (1) against the victim G was in physical coloring the site of warehouse by the victim G on April 26, 2014, Defendant A attempted to sell and sell to the victim KRW 300,00 per square meter (30,000 per square meter) on the ground that Defendant A’s share price was urgently required to pay money.

The term "the Republic of Korea was delegated with regard to the sale and purchase of the land," and the letter of delegation of development made between C and the defendant, K and other seven copies of the register and the cadastral map were shown.

However, the facts are that the defendant A apartments the above AP land from C.