A. The fraud related to the OST production and the right to purchase the OST of the DF. ① Since H is related to the Defendant and accomplice in this part of the facts charged, the H’s statement that “F did not know about the absence of the right to manufacture and sell the OST in the E (hereinafter “E”) is not reliable; ② The representative QG of the limited company G (hereinafter “K”) cannot be deemed to be difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intentional acquisition based on the statement made in the court of the original judgment; ③ The lower court determined that D’s statement made by the investigative agency that “F notified the Defendant and H of the absence of the right to manufacture and sell the OST in the “F” to the Defendant and H during March 2011, but, in light of the fact that the Defendant voluntarily made a statement consistent with D’s statement, the above statement made by the Defendant to the effect that “F” was highly reliable, ④ the Defendant’s right to manufacture and sell the OST contract with the OSG company, but, based on its comprehensive statement with “W” (hereinafter “W”).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below acquitted the facts charged.

B. Fraud related to the Drama’s “A” investment money: ① there was no authority over the OST production and marketing right of the Drama’s “A”; ② the Defendant was well aware of such fact; ② the Defendant used the investment money for most of the film “AJ” revenue cost, which is entirely irrelevant to the production of the Drama; and the Defendant did not notify the victim AC of the use of the investment money at all; ③ the Defendant was not informed of the use of the investment money of KRW 30 million, KRW 24 million, and KRW 10 million.