A. From July 15, 2011 and around January 15, 2011, Defendant 1: (a) each fraud was committed (the crime of the first instance judgment) around July 15, 201; (b) concluded that the contract with the AS was smoothly performed; and (c) around January 201, the fraud was committed with the AS that the AY would produce a quotation; and (d) determined that there was a high probability that the AY would be selected as the removal business entity by requesting an estimate of the cost of removal from the AY warehouse; and (e) there was no deception of the victim AI, AE; and (e) there was no fraud.

In addition, among the money received from the victim AE, the scrap metal amounting to KRW 70 million to KRW 80 million, which was not supplied to the victim in relation to the removal of the Gunsan-si BA, the relocation of the instant case, shall be deducted as it includes KRW 70 million.

B) On or around March 15, 2008, around September 2, 2008, each fraud was committed (the third party criminal facts in the judgment) and around March 15, 2008 (the third party criminal facts in the judgment) and around September 2, 2008, the fraud was committed with N and Q believed, and there was no deception for the victim He who believed the president with a pro rata relationship with the executives of the association. Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the fraud on or around July 15, 201, around January 15, 2011, around September 2008, and around September 2, 2008 (the third party criminal facts in the judgment of the court below). The court below erred by misapprehending the facts of the above subparagraphs 1 and 3, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by misapprehending the judgment, the court below sentenced the suspended execution of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and three years, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. On June 5, 2007, a prosecutor 1) mistake of facts, and the fraud (as to the facts charged by the second instance court, according to the records, KRW 150 million paid by AB to the Defendant, not the payment for the waiver of the right to remove the Seoul X building, and there was no oral agreement with Y on the right to remove the building between Y and Z, and even if there exists a verbal agreement, it is uncertain.

Nevertheless, on June 5, 2007, the second instance found the Defendant not guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.