All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A, B, C, and D, each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (i.e., imprisonment of one year and four months, (ii) imprisonment of one year and four months, (iii) imprisonment of eight months, and (iv) imprisonment of one year and six months, and (v) imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant E’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (1) misunderstanding and fraud with K (the lower court’s 2016 order 3797, 4343) (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) merely mediated the conclusion of the sales contract of Ptel (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) upon K’s request, and neither knew of the duplicate sale nor conspired with K to commit fraud.

(2) The fact that the Defendant violated the authorized judicial brokerage (the lower court 2016 order 3797, the lower court), introduced KF, etc. to enter into a sales contract for the instant officetel sales right, constitutes a sales agency, not a brokerage, and thus, constitutes a sales agency, and thus, the Defendant received money in the name of commission.

Even if this can not be punished as a violation of the public brokerage law.

(3) In the event that there is no defect in the sales contract between the seller of buildings in units and the buyer of buildings in units, both parties can obtain the registration of the transfer of ownership for the goods sold in units by exercising the right to terminate the agency contract with the trust company. As such, the Defendant recognized that the victim Q would be able to obtain the registration of the transfer of ownership normally for the instant officetels 1209, the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain the registration of the transfer of ownership for the instant officetel 1209.

B) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant E’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is 1) 2 or more persons jointly engaged in a crime, i.e., conspiracy of fraud with K (the lower court 2016 order 3797, 4343).