All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts: Although there was a mentioning mentioning the alteration of internal facilities: there is no means to say that the alteration of internal facilities will be made for residential purposes, such as as written in the facts charged. Recording is only said for the smooth reconciliation of the parties. The Defendant only served as the site director and did not participate in the process of concluding a contract for sale. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts: Defendant B (a) was able to use only the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the office, and there was no call to say that the purpose of use is to be changed to a residential officetel. The alteration of use is not mentioned at all. The victim J is the date of sale in lots, and the victim J is a person involved in the sale in the instant office, who has basic knowledge about the alteration of use, and is not accused of the Defendants, and the victim’s witness K, other than the victims, is a person who works together with J, and cannot be trusted. Nevertheless, the lower court, which convicted the Defendant only the statement of the victims and witness K without credibility, was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence (one year of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below to comprehensively consider the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts, and the statements in the J and M of the parties to the trial, the court below found the defendants guilty of the facts charged of this case on the following grounds: the defendants deceiving the victims that they will change the use of the building of this case, which is the office building, for the purpose of selling the building of this case to the victims at the expense of the construction work for a later residential purpose.