The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the part of fraud in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is just and acceptable to have found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to acquire fraud, and the specification of the facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

However, it is clear that the date and time of the crime in subparagraph (d) of Article 1 of the criminal facts in the judgment of the court of first instance is a clerical error in December 27, 2007. Thus, it is obvious that the court below maintained this part as it is. However, according to the records, it is clear that the defendant was aware that it was a clerical error from the court of first instance, which does not affect the conclusion

2) The seller of the real estate in breach of trust can be punished as a breach of trust if the seller of the real estate in breach of trust sells the real estate twice, and even if the ownership of the real estate at the time of the act of breach of trust is in the future of a third party, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of breach of trust if the buyer is in a position that can make the registration of ownership transfer for the buyer, i.e., the status that the buyer can make the registration of ownership transfer for the buyer (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2431, Apr. 9, 193). In addition, in the case of the crime of breach of trust, even if the person becomes the subject of the duty to manage another's business, the juristic person is not a subject of the duty under private law, but has no criminal capacity, and the other person's business is realized by the representative