The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of attempted fraud is acquitted.

A. As to Defendant 1’s attempted fraud from among the facts charged in this case of mistake of facts, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant conspired with the victim E in collusion with the casino side of Cambodia to lend money from the casino side to the victim E, and instead, according to the J’s statement, etc., Defendant J should be deemed to have paid USD 212,100 in fact on the casino side and repaid the victim’s borrowed money instead of the victim’s borrowed money. Nevertheless, according to various circumstances, the court below determined that the fact that the J did not pay USD 212,100 on the casino side for the victim was presumed to have been concealed, and there was an error of misconception of facts finding the Defendant guilty of attempted fraud from among the facts charged in this case on the basis of the victim’s statement without credibility.2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. As to the fraud of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle), the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence, namely, the Defendant’s power to force the Defendant to lend money from the victim in a casino; the Defendant only borrowed money from the victim’s signature and passport; and the Defendant subsequently remitted KRW 380 million to the account under H and I’s name at the request of the casino to repay the borrowed money to the victim after the victim lost most of the borrowed money; in full view of the fact that the Defendant withdraws and uses part of the facts, KRW 180 million, which is the part of the facts charged, and is presumed to have been inferred, the Defendant conspired with the victim in advance in order to take money of the victim; and then, the Defendant divided the amount of money between the casino side and the victim.

Therefore, even though the crime of fraud is established against the defendant, the court below erred in the facts charged in this case.