A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the fraudulent part concerning the victim D (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) 1, the defendant could sufficiently recognize that the defendant deceivings D in need of loan expenses to acquire it, and that the defendant had the intention to commit the crime of deception and deception.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on fraud, embezzlement, and breach of trust as to the victim E, the Defendant was a bad credit holder at the time when he received the door mold from E, and had no property and fixed monthly income, and had a credit card debt of 35 million won or more, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the criminal intent to commit fraud. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous in the judgment below. C) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the part of fraud, embezzlement, and breach of trust as to the victim F, the Defendant by deceiving F to preferentially pay the construction cost of KRW 60 million, thereby taking advantage of the market value of the instant land (HJ large 239 square meters in North Cllldong-gun), by taking a provisional registration cancellation on the instant land (hereinafter “BK”) with F, the representative director of BK (hereinafter “K”), and by taking advantage of the market value of KRW 300 million,000,000,000,00 won, the land and 3000,0.

There is an error of misconception of facts in the original judgment that acquitted each of the facts charged.

B. Defendant 1) mistake of facts (the attempted occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust).