The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the case of 2015 Godan948 in the original judgment), the Defendant introduced AB and AC in the name of AH to AE, and there is no fact of deceiving AE in collusion with AC and AB as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Even if the defendant was in cooperation with AC and AB in committing fraud, the victim AE trusted AH and borrowed KRW 200 million to AC and AB, so it cannot be said that there is a causal relationship between the deceptive act and the disposal act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (an offence under subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 2015 instead 400 at the time of sale: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and an offence under subparagraphs 5 through 7 of Article 2015 instead 400 and Article 948 at the time of sale: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged the same purport in the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the "decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion". In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes the remaining crimes except for the crime of fraud against the victim AE and commits an error against the wrongness, and in the case of the first or fourth crimes of the case No. 2015Kadan400 as indicated in the judgment of the court below, it is necessary to consider the equity between the case where the judgment was rendered and the case where the judgment was received at the same time.