The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

A. As to each of the facts charged in the case of Defendant 1) 2019 High Order 3681 and 2019 High Order 3927, Defendant 1 did not deceive the victim of each of the above cases, since both the victim Z, AA, and AG (in particular, the victim AA and AG are recruited by investors) according to the same business relationship, the Defendant actually provided the profits through the distribution business and made a normal payment without preventing the return, there was no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B) As to the fraud against the Victim AJ in the 2019 High Order 4724 case, there was a fact that: (a) each of the investment funds of KRW 2-A (1) 24.5 million in this part of the charges, and KRW 19.2 million in each of the investment funds of KRW 2-A (2) 1,9.2 million in accordance with AK's introduction to the Victim AJ, but at the time, AK deposited money and invested in it.

On the other hand, only he was aware of the investment of AK, and the victim AJ did not know that the investment was made by the victim AJ. At the time, the defendant was not aware that the defendant himself had made the investment, but the distribution business was normally engaged in the distribution business, and there was no deception since he paid the investment money and the profit to AK, and there was no intention to commit fraud. <2-B, No. 2-2, No. 2-2, 34,500,00 won borrowed money in this part of the facts charged, the defendant did not request the victim AJ to borrow money, and therefore, the defendant was deemed to have borrowed money from AJ, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Even though the Defendant agreed with the victim V, W in 2019 High Order 1429, the lower court erred by misapprehending the foregoing.