A. The lower court determined that the Defendant, by deceiving the victim R to lend business funds and by deceiving the victim R to obtain money as a loan, but the Defendant merely borrowed money and borrowed money to the victim R, and there is no deception for the victim R.

B) Since the Defendant paid part of the cost of the bus operation cost for the bus bus service on the AB external service route to the victim R, this part should be excluded from the defrauded amount. C) Even if the Defendant concluded a transport contract with AD and the 300,000 won per time with the victim R to compensate for the difference in G and H Organizing Committee (hereinafter “Organizing Committee”), it cannot be deemed that the victim R was merely a motive for concluding a contract with AD and thus deceiving the victimR.

In addition, the victim R was aware that it would receive operating expenses of KRW 300,000 per time when concluding a contract with AD, and there is no error. The defendant actually borrowed the office rent from the victim N because it is required by the office, and there is no deception by deceiving the victim N.). E) The operating expenses that the defendant is obliged to pay to the victim N are not KRW 170,400,000 but KRW 122,000,000,000,000,000 won, so the difference between the operating expenses that the defendant acquired from the victim N is not KRW 123,40,000,000, but KRW 60 million.

F) When the Defendant uses G symbols, he/she is not aware of whether he/she should obtain approval from the Organizing Committee, and is subject to attachment for a vehicle printed by G Musco (hereinafter “instant attachment”).

As the Defendant used it, it constitutes a legal site. (g) The Defendant was capable of performing its obligation at the time of concluding an operation contract with the victim AI, and thereafter, the Defendant entered into a transportation contract with the victim AI.