The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

Punishment for C shall be set forth as KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

C above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B: Each mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the Defendant A and B did not conspired with Defendant C to commit fraud, and at the time, the said Defendants did not induce the victim N, and there was no intention to commit the crime by deceit to the said Defendants) and unfair sentencing.

Defendant

C: Error of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant C merely explained that there is a value of investment because it is the land in the sphere of influence of the victim N regarding L's land in the Chuncheon City of this case, and provided that he would accept registration of shares by explaining that there is a value of investment, and Defendant B explained about L's land in this case, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim) and unfair sentencing.

Prosecutor: each unreasonable sentencing decision

2. The judgment of this Court

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. as to Defendant A and B, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant A and B explicitly conspiredd with Defendant C, etc. to commit frauds by deceiving money from the victim with regard to the sale and purchase of each land of this case, and there is no possibility that Defendant A and B conspired with Defendant C, etc. to acquire the purchase price of each of the land of this case consecutively or implicitly, and there is dispute as to whether the above Defendants conspired with the victim to acquire the purchase price of each of the land of this case from the investigative agency since then up to the court of the trial, and there is no possibility that the Defendants consistently conspired to commit frauds and did not belong to the victim, and the victim complained of detention by asserting that the victim did not belong to the victim. The victim was present at each court of the first instance and the court of the trial, and there was no fact that Defendant A met only during the sale and purchase process of each of the land of this case, and Defendant B did not mention that there was an investment value of each of the land of this case.