A. Defendant 1) In the absence of the fact that the Defendant, with the criminal intent of deceiving the victim AG by deceiving the victim AG by deceiving the defrauded, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) In the absence of the fact that the Defendant provided sufficient security while borrowing money from the Victim Q from the victim A, and by deceiving the victim A Q with the intent to commit the crime of defraudation, the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the facts charged by F, the court below found the defendant not guilty of all the charges, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant, by deceiving F and deceiving F, defrauds money of KRW 60,00,000,000, by taking account of financial gains that are exempted from a debt equivalent to KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and that the F-owned market price of KRW 30,000,000,000,000 won was 30,000,000 won.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the facts charged by H as a whole, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the charge of acquiring the 1,1580,000 won for the purchase of the friend motor vehicle as shown in the crime log table (2) No. 6 per annum as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and found that the 4,430,000 won for the purchase of the friend motor vehicle as shown in the crime log (2) No. 13 per annum as shown in the crime log table (2.32 per annum) as stated in the judgment of the court below, and found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged, but the court below acquitted the Defendant on the charge.