The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of fraud on March 25, 2015 among the facts charged in the instant case and found the Defendant guilty of the remainder of the facts charged.

With respect to the judgment of the court below, only the defendant appealed from the guilty part, and the acquittal part was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the remaining conviction except the above acquittal part.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Fraud against the victim B 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 28, 32, 37, 40, 42, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 60, 66, 70, 75, 79, 81, and 83 (hereinafter referred to as the "crime list") in the judgment of the court below is specified solely by the sequence.

(2) Each money recorded is nothing more than a fact that the Defendant received from the victim or delivered it to a third party. The victim paid not the Defendant the money by deception, but the Defendant, etc. to assist the Defendant. (2) The Defendant did not commit any crime as stated in this part of the facts constituting the crime, and the facts constituting the crime acknowledged by the lower court are also inconsistent with the statements of the victims.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, 1) Nos. 7 No. 7 (the fraud against the victim B) (the 6.9 million won on May 4, 2015) alleged in the lower court to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. As to this, the lower court, under the title of “determination on the Defendant’s assertion”, alleged that the victim’s relevant investigative agencies and legal statements, I and J investigative agencies and legal statements are reliable, and that the person who actually used the vehicle purchased from I was the Defendant and the Defendant was the Defendant, and the person who bought the vehicle above in light of the circumstances after the Defendant was lost.