The judgment below

Of them, paragraphs 1-C, 2, 3 and 2018 Godan3628 of the ruling of 2018 Godan1574 are set forth in paragraph 1-C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant has sufficient intent and ability to pay money from the victims at the time of receiving the money, and there is no deception by deceiving the victims of all the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the penalty of unfair sentencing (each of the crimes under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Decision No. 1-A and (2) of the Decision No. 2018, 1574, 2018, 2018, 2018, 3628, 1-C and (2) of the Decision No. 1-3, 2018, 2018, 1-3 and 2 of the Decision No. 2018, 2018, 3628, 1-2, 200, 200) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s crime of defraudation by taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the first instance court, in addition to the above grounds stated in the lower court’s judgment, based on the following: (b) the Defendant was unable to use the interest on the loan from the bank, etc. even if it was newly invested due to the increased burden on the repayment of the interest on the loan from the bank, etc.; (c) the Defendant received the investment from the victims for the existing construction cost and other businesses and expenses; and (b) used the money for the purpose of repaying the existing loan and the investment principal and interest on the loan; and (b) the Defendant used the money for the purpose of repaying the principal and interest on the loan.