The judgment below

Of them, the part concerning Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Section 2 of its holding.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) O and P land in the city of misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “Innju City land”).

In the case of the Defendant’s order termination of the right to collateral security established by the victims’ share, the pertinent auction was withdrawn, and the Plaintiff’s forest and land for AI (hereinafter “Yang-gun forest and land”).

(2) In the case of unfair sentencing, the punishment against Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) of the first instance court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment for Defendant C by the first instance court for Defendant C (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the first instance court’s determination of mistake of facts regarding Defendant A’s assertion, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, Defendant A conspired with Co-Defendant B and Defendant C, who is an accomplice, to cancel the right to collateral security established on the land at the time of female, within a reasonable period of time, or acquired the ownership of Pyeongtaek-gun Forest and Forest and Land and acquired the victims with no intent or ability to transfer the full ownership of each of the above land within a reasonable period of time, and could sufficiently be recognized that Defendant A conspireded the victims to enter into a sales contract for each of the above land and acquired the purchase price after receiving the

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of Defendant A’s assertion.

① At the time of selling the land and Pyeongtaek-gun forest land, Defendant A recognized that financial standing, such as the facts charged, was not good as stated in the facts charged, by the investigative agency. Defendant C and Co-defendant B’s statement is the same purport.

In addition, Defendant A at the time of concluding a sales contract for the land of women A.