All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part of the crime of oil), the Defendant’s right to collateral security established in the name of the victim on the land D and seven lots owned by Seosan City, Seosan-si (hereinafter “Seosan City

A) Although there was deception of the victim in order to cancel, the land-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed claims are invalid, and is invalid in violation of social order as it was established to secure the claim regarding criminal proceeds from the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act. Thus, even if the land-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage was cancelled in Yongsan City, the crime of fraud is not established because the defendant acquired property benefits or did not incur property damage to the victim. (ii) The punishment of the lower court of unfair sentencing (eight

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the mistake of facts (not guilty part), the defendant's right to collateral security established on the victim's land B outside Seongbuk-gu Seoul and 2 lots owned by the defendant (hereinafter "B-mortgage security right to land").

(2) In order to cancel the judgment of the court below, the court below’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable, as stated in this part of the facts charged, by deceiving the victim as well as sufficiently recognizing the fact that the victim cancels the right to collateral security on the land B.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the right to collateral security is deemed to have been duly and effectively established according to the agreement between the Defendant and the victim. On the contrary, we cannot find any data or circumstances that can be deemed as invalid on the basis of a contract establishing a right to collateral security which is forged in Seosan City’s land.

In addition, according to the above evidence, the defendant's obligation secured by the land-mortgage in Seocho-si.