All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing): at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant owned the right to sell in lots, was sufficiently able to secure the right to sell in lots, and the Defendant had an intent and ability to repay

Defendant did not take part in the crime of this case.

The sentence of the court below is too heavy.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing): The Defendant did not participate in the instant crime, and only prepared a certificate of fairness in monetary consumption lending and borrowing contract between Defendant A and the victim as a notary public.

The sentence of the court below is too heavy.

(c)

Defendant

C (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing): The defendant did not have any participation in the crime of this case.

The sentence of the court below is too heavy.

(d)

Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too minor.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants, who already offered to M as security, offered the Defendant’s right to purchase apartment units as security, offered money to borrow money from the damaged party, and led to functional control by sharing certain acts.

The Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

On April 1, 2015, the Defendants intended to borrow money from a bond company as collateral for the instant apartment sales right, but the bond company refused to enter into a sales contract with Defendant A and M with the knowledge of the fact that the sales contract for the said apartment sales right was concluded. On the same day, Defendants, P, M, etc. attempted to explain the P business plan at the same place and borrowed money from M, but were refused.