The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part of fraud by mistake of facts, there was no intention of deception fraud, and the fraud did not receive the money from the victim (as indicated in the judgment below, paragraphs b and 8 of Article 2012 of the upper part of the judgment below) and the act of lending, etc. according to the judgment of the victim (as indicated in the judgment below, the upper part of Article 24157-1 of the upper part of the judgment below).

Paragraphs and 5. Part 5.) With respect to the occupational embezzlement, the consent to use of money was obtained from the representative of corporation I.

With respect to the remaining crimes, such as document forgery, the consent of the nominal owner of the document was obtained or known as such, and there was a right to prepare the document.

B. The sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below claiming a mistake of facts, the court below is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of all of the charges, such as fraud, occupational embezzlement, preparation of private documents for qualification, preparation of private documents for qualification, forgery of private documents, forgery of private documents, forgery of the above investigation documents, copying of private electronic records such as public records, and electronic records recorded as false records. Thus, the court below's judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. It is recognized that the defendant does not want to be punished in the case of the victim Y, Q, I, and U who alleged unfair sentencing.

However, the court below's decision that the defendant was released on bail and was judged in undetained state, and the defendant was not bona fide in the trial due to the absence of the whereabouts of the defendant, and after the trial was conducted in the trial, the court below failed to faithfully perform the trial, and the total amount of damage exceeds 1.5 billion won, and repeated the crime against many victims for a considerable period, and it seems that the remaining victims except the victims mentioned above were not able to receive a letter of favor and that a considerable amount of damage is not recovered.