A. Defendant 1) In order to constitute a crime of fraud by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part concerning the crime of embezzlement), in order for the Defendant to borrow money from the victim H through G, the fact that the said Defendant directly deceivings the said victim or deceiving G from the said Defendant should be recognized. The Defendant did not deceiving the said victim or G.

B) At the time, the Defendant provided sufficient explanation on the financial status of the Defendant to the victim N at the time and did not have the intent to repay or ability to repay the loan. In addition, even though the Defendant was able to use the loan differently from that notified to the said victim, in light of the pro-friendly relationship with the said victim, it is difficult to deem that the said victim gave a loan to the said victim, and in view of the location of the loan and the purpose of its use, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had the intent and ability to use the loan. Furthermore, as the Defendant was unable to recover the construction cost due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant in the course of performing the business thereafter, it was not possible to pay the loan to the said victims. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of each fraudulent part of the charges against the said victims.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquittal portion, the Defendant had an excessive obligation at the time of concluding a contract with the victim B, C, D, and E, and the unpaid construction cost was received at a new construction site.