The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 2014, with regard to the fact-finding (1) fraud, there was no fraud with regard to the damage amount of the victim K, 16,73,750 won, the damage amount of the victim K, 16,750 won, 7.4 million won, 6,804,00 won, 54,634,00 won, 29,560,000 won among the damage amount of the victim No. 2 of the crime list No. 2 of the crime list No. 54,634,00 in the judgment of the court below, 9,60,000 won, 16,773,750 won, and 11,800,000 won in the net time, 7.4 million won in the victim’s damage amount of the victim’s damage amount of the victim No. 14,5,382,70 won in the victim’s damage amount of the victim, and 5,38200 won in this part).

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts affected by the judgment of the court below.

(2) In relation to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document, the Defendant prepared a written contract, etc. with G’s consent, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts affecting the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that X acquired KRW 150 million out of the amount acquired by deception after the criminal defendant conspired with X in collusion with X, the punishment sentenced by the lower court (two and a half years and six months of imprisonment with labor for the crime No. 1, and six months of imprisonment with labor for the crime No. 2) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On the assertion of mistake of fact, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the fraud, namely, the witness I was supplied at the lower court’s court level of KRW 1 million and KRW 1.5 million.

The witness K stated that there was only a small transaction prior to the instant transaction, but did not have been supplied at all for the instant transaction.

The witness J, who has mediated the cosmetic transactions more than 3 times, did not receive cosmetics in relation to the damage to the name influences.