The guilty part against Defendant A and the acquittal part as to fraud around June 25, 201.

A. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts as to the part of the crime of oil, misunderstanding of legal principles) had a relation of marriage by marriage with Hyundai Motor Group.

In accordance with the so-called “Agreement,” the victim FF corporation (hereinafter “victim F corporation”) could be registered as a partner company of the Hyundai Motor Group, and related construction could be ordered.

However, the business did not run on the ground that the remuneration and support measures promised by the injured company were not implemented, and the health of the injured company was deteriorated.

After all, Defendant A did not participate in the payment of money under a consulting agreement that is separate from the part of the victimized company.

The act of deception was not conducted, and there was no intention to obtain fraud.

B. The prosecutor (the defendant A) committed a mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part) L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) with the power of arranging or mediating the purchase and sale of stocks to the defendant A through the issuance of power of proxy, and did not have the power of acting as an agent for the purchase and sale of stocks.

L has no outcome of Defendant A’s business, and withdraws his power of attorney at the end of July 2009, and the same year.

8. At the horse, Defendant A was treated as retired.

Nevertheless, Defendant A made a copy of a power of delegation altered by means of partially d and copying the content, and presented it to the victim D and E, and even without holding L/S, Defendant A concluded a share purchase contract as if he/she was the owner of the shares and acquired the purchase price of the shares from the victims.

The court below erred in finding the lack of proof of crime.

(2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too minor.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the lower court and the evidence examined by the appellate court on the grounds of the judgment of conviction as to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B is in the order or order with Defendant A.