A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Article 1 of the indictment of this case)

A. 1) Part of the facts charged in the instant case

A. As to the part 1, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

① The Defendant, at around April 18, 2008, engaged in illegal gambling with the victim C in the Z on the part of the Z on the same date and time. As such, “In our house has at least 250 matris, real estate is equal to and equal to real estate in the name of his father,” the Defendant would have repaid money.

There is no false statement, and the above victim is not subject to deception of the above false statement due to the relationship with which the defendant is well aware of the situation of each other from the time when the defendant was frightened.

In addition, the judgment of the court below is not specified since April 18, 2008 and August 1, 2015, since the date of deception, it did not indicate how the defendant deceptioned the victim.

② The amount of re-payment Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 7 of the attached list of crimes in the lower judgment is based on evidence that the said victim had stuffed by the said victim as the said victim transferred the money to the account of P, a lottery performer, and the said victim transferred the money once a year to A, and there is only records that the said victim deposited KRW 30 million from his own account in relation to the 14 re-payment once a year.

Therefore, the defendant received each of the above money from the above damage.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the relevant part of the facts charged, although there is no evidence.

③ Examining the details of the Defendant’s account transaction, it can be seen that the Defendant’s money re-amounted to KRW 2,8,9,10,11, and 12 on the day or near the day of the offense set forth in the attached Table of the lower judgment was used as illegal gambling funds.

In light of this, the above money cannot be viewed as the borrowed money, and it is illegal by making investments with the defendant and the above victim together, as alleged by the defendant.