A. In light of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

1) As to the fraud against the victim B, the Defendant received 30 million won from the victim B (hereinafter “H”) in relation to the fraud against the victim B.

A) The Defendant was invested by the said victim as a cost for stock value assessment services for the sale of shares. At that time, the Defendant did not deceiving the said victim to use the said amount of KRW 30 million. In addition, the Defendant is the F Co., Ltd. F (former trade name: AA; hereinafter “F”).

(E) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”);

(B) On June 23, 2017, the Defendant planned to receive only KRW 10 million for the performance of H’s stock value assessment services, and did not know that F was scheduled to use KRW 20 million for the instant victim’s operating expenses, etc. of E company. (2) In relation to the fraud of the victim L on June 23, 2017, the Defendant, along with L, intended to promote online education services, etc. (hereinafter “N”).

(B) Establishment of the above company and work as a working-level manager of the above company. From May 2017, the victim L, who operated the above company, was not paid to the defendant at all, borrowed KRW 10 million from the above victim under the condition that the defendant would be deducted from the defendant's salary to be paid later. However, the above victim did not pay the defendant the above KRW 10 million later but did not pay the defendant the above KRW 10 million later. (B) In relation to the fraud of July 29, 2017, the defendant did not have any obligation to theO, and there was no request from the victim L to pay the defendant's debt to the victim on behalf of the victim, and the above victim did not merely request the EO to pay the defendant's debt to the victim on behalf of the victim.