The judgment below

Part concerning the crimes of Nos. 1, 2, 3-A, 4 and 4 of the judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the fraud against the victim S fishing village fraternity from among the facts charged in the instant case: The defendant did not say that the defendant "if the defendant entrusts the fishery damage investigation service, he may receive compensation of at least KRW 100 million per report", and the victim did not directly request the defendant to investigate the damage to fishery, and only received service charges after having requested the defendant to investigate the damage to fishery, and did not deceiving the victim.

② Of the facts charged in the instant case, each fraud against the victim V University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation and fraud against the victim AG University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation (the fraudulent part of the research service cost): the Defendant entered into a research service contract with the service owner and actually performed the service; and the Defendant claimed a labor cost for the part that is difficult to separately define the items of the service cost and only calculated the research service cost to be received by the Defendant out of the total service cost, and there was no intention to obtain money from the victims.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (the 2-year imprisonment, the 3-C of the ruling, the 1-year imprisonment, and the 1-year and 6-month imprisonment) of the lower court on the sentence of an unfair sentencing (the 1-2-Ga, the 3-Ga and the 4-Ga of the original decision), is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court on the part of the fraud against the victim S fishing Village fraternity, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby deceiving the victim.

① The Defendant alleged that there was no deception of the victim as the grounds for appeal from the investigative agency to the trial of the case, and that the fishery damage investigation service between the Defendant and the victim (hereinafter “instant service”) is more than the Korea Gas Corporation’s order for the same service upon request of the victim.