The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant could not anticipate the occurrence of the instant guarantee accident at the time of the sales contract with the Defendant on January 25, 2005, and there was a subsequent sales accident. However, this part was returned after settlement with the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd., which was the contractor, and there was no scope of fraud because the Defendant was capable of paying construction expenses to the KS Construction Co., Ltd..., which was the contractor. Thus, the victim was aware that the instant discount sales contract was not normal and was unable to receive the performance of the guarantee from the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd., and did not deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) Defendant Management Corporation I (hereinafter “I”)

A) around June 2004, 2004, E.S. Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S. Construction”).

The apartment house of 326 units on the ground of the 8 parcels, both Jin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and J (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment house”).

A) The Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Housing Guarantee”) entered into a new construction contract and around November 2004

B) On January 25, 2005, the victim K entered into a sales contract with I for the purpose of imposing the responsibility for the performance of the sale of housing units or for the refund of the paid occupancy amount if I becomes unable to execute the sales contract due to a guarantee accident. (2) On January 25, 2005, the victim K entered into the sales contract with I for 105 Dong 1001 among the instant apartment units, and paid the Defendant the sales price of KRW 80 million on January 27, 2005, and the normal sale price of KRW 100,8210,000,000 for the above 105 Dong 1001.

3. On the other hand, the defendant.