A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts as indicated in the lower judgment (Defendant 1) refers to the list of crimes as indicated in the original judgment, both. 20 million won as of February 15, 2013, No. 3 No. 11, No. 11, and No. 20 million won as of February 15, 2013, and 20 million won as of April 12, 2013 and No. 13, May 27, 2013, which K borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant on March 25, 2013, and the amount of KRW 30 million as of July 31, 2014 and KRW 5 million as of July 31, 2013, which were received by the Defendant under the pretext of a single concurrent act of KRW 200,000 from the Defendant on July 25, 2013 (a comprehensive act of KRW 300,000,00).

Even if the act of receiving money from K constitutes an inclusive crime, as alleged in the above paragraph (1), the sum of the amount that the Defendant received from K shall be excluded from the sum of the amount that the Defendant received from K, as stated in the above paragraph (1). As such, the total sum of the amount that the Defendant actually received from K falls short of KRW 50 million ( KRW 73.5 million-47 million = 6.6 million), the Defendant is not subject to an aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 5 (4) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 5 (3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes).

B. A victim due to the Defendant’s loan of the Defendant by the public prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal principle as to the acquittal portion in the grounds for appeal) is a national bank with a single legal interest in damage, and all of the loans secured by the telecom are fully in charge of the Defendant’s direct procedure and examination, and the fact that the trading price of the telecom sales contract was lowered is silent and the “AM appraisal corporation”