A. Error 1) As to the fraud against the victim D, the victim D did not lend the above money to the defendant after he decided to purchase the machinery together with the defendant, but did not lend the above money. The defendant purchased the machinery with the money received from the victim D and the above machinery was delivered to the victim D. The fact that the above machinery was not properly sold is merely a interference with the victim D or due to other changes in circumstances. In the end, the victim D cannot be deemed to have acquired the money by deceiving the victim D. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the fraud and embezzlement against the victim P. Nevertheless, there was an error of law by misconceptioning the facts. 2) As to the fraud and embezzlement against the victim P, the defendant did not commit fraud and embezzlement as described in this part of the facts charged, such as using the money for the victim. Thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part.

3) As to the forgery of an official document and the uttering of a forged official document, the person committing this part of the crime is not only V but also the victim cannot be the counterpart to the uttering of a forged official document because he was aware of the forgery of the business registration certificate. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the crime is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the fraud of the victim D, namely, ① the most important premise of the defendant’s assertion is not that the victim D lend money to the defendant as stated in this part of the facts charged.