Defendant 1.

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Victim G in Article 1(1) of the Judgment on the misunderstanding of Facts (the judgment of the first instance court), the Defendant did not deceiving the Victim G to make a false statement about H (hereinafter “H”).

B) As to the fraud against the victim'sO under Paragraph (2) of the holding, the Defendant entered into an export contract for medical devices equivalent to USD 1.6 million annually with a foreign medical device dealer. However, as the Defendant demanded the replacement of the said machinery with a high-class rental, the above high-class rental purchase cost is required and explained it to the victim'sO and borrowed KRW 300 million. After that, at the expense for solving the above rental replacement problem, the Defendant borrowed it from the above victim because it is necessary to pay KRW 20 million to the head of the Clori French branch office. However, it is difficult to explain the complex process, and it is merely a nominal exchange commission because the Defendant has sufficient intent and ability to pay to the above victim through the above export contract. (c) It is not a fraud crime since the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim P and contact account (AH and AI) used for fraud with respect to the fraud of the victim, or the remainder of the account deposit is not used for the purpose of using the other victim's account account.

The lower court deemed that the Defendant committed such act on the ground that part of the money deposited by the said victim was transferred to the foreign exchange bank account under the name of the Defendant, but the Defendant is not liable for controlling the said victim’s act of fraud. Each of the items of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the holding.