All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) 1 is erroneous in the facts of the decision of the original judgment and misunderstanding of legal principles ① additional investment fraud: the Defendant was aware that the Defendant succeeded to the investment of the VA (VA) and continued to make a profit, and only received an investment in the profit claim from the damaged party, and did not have the intent to acquire it by fraud, as it falls under the VA (VA)’s deception that the profit has been distributed.

The amount of KRW 490,00,000, out of the amount re-amount 2,4,6,6, and9 of the crime list Nos. 2, 6, and 9, shall be excluded from the amount of fraud, since the defendant has returned the money loaned to B for the return of the investment money again, and it shall be excluded from the amount of defraudation which has been repaid during the investment period.

B Since a number of third parties made an investment under the name of VA investment, the victim of the crime of fraud is not B but third parties who paid investment money.

(2) The fraud of the borrowed money: The defendant had the ability and intention to repay at the time of the borrowing, and therefore he did not have the intention of defraudation.

(3) Determination of concurrent crimes without Amendments to Bill of Indictment: The lower court, without changing the bill of amendment, committed some of the crimes prosecuted as a single comprehensive crime, as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the remainder, as a single crime.

However, it is disadvantageous to punish a crime prosecuted for a single comprehensive crime as concurrent crimes, so the court below did not go through the process of Amendments to Bill of Indictment.

2) As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt (A) by misunderstanding the fact of the resolution of the first instance judgment and misunderstanding the legal principles, B, C (hereinafter “B, etc.”) and the Dispute Resolution Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BP”) operated by B, D, and C (hereinafter “BP”) are separate from the Defendant, and there is no relationship between B, B, and investors with the Defendant.

EG Investment is merely a trade of shares in BO by the defendant.

TJ 2차 투자는 전환 사채를 발행하여 인수하게 한 것이고, BY 3차 및 TJ 3차 투자는 오퍼 튠...