A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the part of the charges of this case (in relation to the fraud of loans in the name of outdoor advertising tower project cost, the nominal loan development project of Gangwon-do site, the conversion loan work cost of a stock company, the fraud in the name of the conversion loan project of the stock company), and the part of the Gangwon-do site development project (not guilty in the attached Table Nos. 1 and 1 of the original judgment) and the part of the fraud of the converted loan work cost of the stock company (not guilty in the reasoning) around February 2, 2009. However, according to evidence, it is recognized that the Defendant received each of the above money, and in light of all the overall circumstances, it constitutes fraud. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The Defendant’s grounds for appeal that found the remainder of the charges of this case, excluding each of the above innocent parts, of

However, there is no fact that the defendant did not commit deception related to the outdoor advertising tower business and received the money (70 million won) from the victim.

In addition, it is true that the defendant borrowed money from the victim in relation to the land development project of Gangwon-do, or there was no deception related to the above project as stated in the facts charged, and the defendant also did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation against the victim.

On a different premise, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too minor or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant develops a site in Gangwon-do, among the facts of loan fraud under the name of the Gangwon-do Site Development Project.