A. Defendant 1) Fraud with the victim U.S., the Defendant entered into an agreement with U.S. to engage in the business of selling the completed LED parts and distributing profits by assembling the LED parts imported from U.S. In spite of the fact that most of the goods assembled by the victim U were not fulfilled the above agreement on the wind of returning them to bad quality, the lower court had the intent of deceiving the Defendant.

There is an error of law affecting the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

B) Even though the Defendant supplied or sold the amount equivalent to the investment money to the victim W, the lower court had the intent to commit fraud and fraud, even though the Defendant provided or sold it to the victim W.

The facts were cited.

C) The Defendant committed fraud against the Victim A, despite the fact of deception and the criminal intent of defraudation, even though he did not pay the construction cost as the criminal intent of defraudation while he was performing construction work by concluding a prefabricated-type housing and factory construction contract with the Victim A, and the above victim did not perform the construction work properly and did not pay the construction cost by the above victim.

The facts were cited.

2) The lower court’s sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant had the intent to defraud the victim, taking into account the fact-finding assertion as to the victim U.S.

It shall be fully recognized.

On April 29, 2015 and May 7, 2015, the Defendant admitted the facts charged against U by the defense counsel’s written opinion that recognized the facts charged against the victim U by deception on the first trial date of the lower court’s first trial, and denied that “the Defendant did not intend to acquire by deception as a partner relationship” was “on the second trial date.”