A. In full view of the fact-finding and legal principles, the Defendant refused to receive by-products more than the victim H because the price of the by-products at the time of misunderstanding the fact, thereby refusing to receive by-products, and the Defendant did not supply them to the above victim, and there was no intent and capacity to supply by-products, and there was no promise to transfer the supply site of livestock products to the Seoul Metropolitan area as alleged by the above victim, and the Defendant knew that the right to sell by-products offered as security was a real security with real value, and the said victim also received the right to sell by-products as security upon appraisal by the expert, the Defendant’s intent to obtain by-products and deception against the victim H cannot be recognized.

In addition, it was true that the defendant supplied only by-products of the amount of KRW 14 million to the victim M, even though he received money of KRW 50 million from the victim M. However, in full view of the fact that the above victim violated the contract, such as paying only a part of the deposit, and the fact that the defendant refused to designate the place designated as the shipping site and did not receive by-products, the victim M was aware that the defendant was entitled to receive the money that the defendant received from the above victim as part of the deposit to provide for the gold unemployment, and even if the above victim was supplied by by-products of the lawsuit amounting to KRW 14 million from the above victim, the defendant did not pay the above amount by-products of KRW 50 million,000,000 which the defendant received from the above victim, and thus the defendant did not enter into the contract with the gold unemployment, it cannot be recognized that the defendant acquired the victim M through deception or deception of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The lower court’s punishment is unfair (a.e., imprisonment).