All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the judgment of the court below 1, it was true that the defendant's South East-dong D arbitrarily sold each real estate located in Toysan-gu E and Ma in Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Seoul, to P, the representative of O and O without the defendant's permission, and there was a criminal intent to commit a fraudulent act or to obtain by deception against the defendant.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. As to the judgment of the court below of the second instance, it was true that O conspireds with D in collusion with D that each of the real estate transactions contracts in the Full-gu E located in the front city of the facts charged, the Defendant’s accusation is not false, but is false, and even if it was false, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit a false offense by finding out that the contents of the above accusation were true, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the reasons for the above appeal prior to the determination of ex officio.

Each of the different courts tried against the defendant separately, and each of the judgment below was pronounced.

After filing an appeal against each judgment of the court below, the defendant filed an application for consolidated examination of land jurisdiction, and this court was consolidated in accordance with the Supreme Court's consolidated examination.

However, each of the crimes in the judgment of the first and second levels is in the relation of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the same Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, which separately provide for punishment for the above crimes, cannot be maintained any more in this regard.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is also subject to each of the lower courts.