All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) was able to pay KRW 92,50,000 according to the above sales contract at the time when the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the victim I on June 2005, and registered the transfer of ownership of the said real estate from the victim of the said damage, and paid the purchase price in full to the said victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was identical to the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, stating in its written judgment the Defendant’s assertion and its decision.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the victim R’s revocation of the complaint against the Defendant, and that the Defendant partially repaid the remainder of the victims’ damages.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is unfair in light of its details, methods, frequency, and size of defraudation, and the fact that the defendant did not agree with the other victims except for the victim R until the trial of the party, and that the defendant could have been punished for the same crime.

In addition, the new sentencing is imposed after the judgment of the court below.