The appeal is dismissed.

A. On November 2010, concerning the existence of deception, there is a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) the part related to the construction of the K Rest store in the victim C (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Da4098, Daejeon District Court Decision 1-C).

(2) As to the facts charged in this case, as to whether the Defendant had a criminal intent to take fraud, the part related to the right to operate an expressway rest area, including various coaches, stores, etc. (The Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Da4098 No. 1-200, Jan. 1, 2012; 2013DaDa1119, Nov. 19, 2013; 2017Mo257, Nov. 28, 2002) related to the right to manage the expressway rest area among the facts charged in this case (the Daejeon District Court Decision 201Da20897, Feb. 2, 2012; 201Da11308, Jan. 2, 2012; 2013Da4098, Feb. 19, 2013Da2097, Feb. 29, 2012).

In relation to paragraph, the defendant merely borrowed 20 million won from the victim L, and there was no intention to acquire the defendant.

3) Of the instant charges regarding double prosecution, the facts charged regarding the victim C’s right to operate the Gyeong Highway H and I resting C ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Da4098, Daejeon District Court Decision 1-B).

(B) The facts charged related to the right to operate the same coponer with the victim V and U (S) fall under a double indictment with the same case as the actual case. B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing decision by the lower court is too unreasonable as the imprisonment of three years is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether a mistake of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles was made with respect to one victim C.