A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s fraud with respect to the victim AC in 2018, 2018, 346, is a victim AC in around 2015 (hereinafter “victim AC”).

(2) As to the charge of fraud against the Defendant, the Defendant was already subject to a non-prosecution disposition on suspicion of fraud. However, when the Defendant was detained in court due to the crime of indecent act by compulsion by force, which is the previous offense in the judgment, the prosecution charged the Defendant, without going through a re-investigation into the instant case, which constitutes an unlawful case, and the procedure for abuse of public prosecution or prosecution is also illegal. In addition, the Defendant did not deception the victim AC and there was no criminal intent to obtain money. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and by misapprehending the legal principles, the lower court rendered a judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) “The Victim AA, Q, AA, and B, which was scheduled to be opened from “T,” and each fraud against “T,” the CWW Hospital’s mixed assets at the Government Hospital, which was planned to be opened, and the Defendant was able to open the hospital for approximately 100 million won.

However, on March 1, 2016, when entering into a lease agreement with the Defendant, the owner of the building “T” decided to complete the completion of the building by October 30, 2016, in a condition that the use of the building can be changed from the commercial building to the general hospital and the general hospital can move in, and the lease deposit is paid by the Defendant in replacement of the commercial building after the completion of the building. However, even though the Defendant agreed to pay the shortage of money after the completion of the building, the lease deposit was not completed by requiring the prior performance of the lease deposit amount of KRW 2 billion without going against the above agreement, and the said lease agreement was broken down due to the wind that obstructs the Defendant’

Ultimately, as long as the defendant entered into a contract with the victim AA, Q, Y, and B before the dispute with the above R is coming into existence, the defendant is the above victims.