A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

A. (1) Fact-finding (1) The Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 130 million from the victim in the course of borrowing money from the victim. However, Qu only consulted with the victim about investment conditions, and there was no deception by the Defendant as the Defendant did not directly consult with the victim.

(2) The Defendant’s fraud against the Victim J was fully repaid KRW 3 million from the victim, and the victim was aware of the fact that the Defendant provided the vehicle as security, thus not deceiving the victim.

(B) The fact that the Defendant received a total of KRW 270 million from the victim, but the Defendant did not seem to have obtained the exclusive right to purchase part of the O building as if he could have secured the right to purchase part of the O building, and there was a fact that the Defendant entered into a provisional contract with T by delivering KRW 138 million to U and received delegation of the sale of the building from the alternative securities. Thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

(3) The part on the defraudation of KRW 150,00,000,000,000 for the 2012 Highest 4560 (Fraud for Victim R) (A), did not have the intention of defraudation, and Q has induced money from the victim, and the Defendant did not have conspired with Q and Q.

(B) The defraudation part of KRW 220 million does not have any fact of deceiving the victim, nor did there have any intention to acquire the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes to the indictment in the case of the 201 High Court Order 7749, which entered the facts charged in the following criminal facts. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, as above.