The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

One year is imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of the 2014 High 340 case, which is held by the defendant.

1. The lower court acquitted K of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

However, since only the defendant appealed against the guilty part, the above acquittal part becomes separate and conclusive, this part is excluded from the scope of this Court's trial.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. On August 16, 2018, the submission period for a statement of reasons for misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the legal principles is limited to the scope of supplement in supplement of the reasons for appeal.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that the defendant's 30 million won, which the defendant returned from M, in relation to the above summary of the pleading and the 6th trial date of the trial of the trial of the court of the first instance, constituted an illegal cause, or a crime of embezzlement is not established as an ex post facto act, but such assertion is a new lawsuit after the expiration of the period for submitting the appeal, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

1) The part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes) (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes 2014 high 340) regarding G building (the instant case) was decided to operate a business with H and G buildings. The Defendant concluded a contract with H to deny the relationship with H is false, and ② a contract with H to operate a business with H as a supporting document for the settlement of expenses arising from the business relationship in form as a supporting document for the settlement of expenses (hereinafter “instant contract”). ③ The Defendant paid KRW 400 million as the actual business entity with 30% share in the agreement with the same business and received the settlement of expenses between the Defendant and its partners for the promotion of the business, and ④ the Defendant did not constitute good offices in the course of implementing the joint implementation project after concluding the contract, and ⑤ the Defendant offered the convenience of loans to H.