All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months and by a fine of 3,00,000 won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the judgment of the first instance court on the misunderstanding of facts, 4.65 million won out of the money acquired from the victim E during each crime of fraud, 2.3 million won out of the money acquired from the victim J, 3.3 million won out of the money acquired from the victim M, 7.0 million won out of the money acquired from the victim AI, and 2.6 million won from the victim G out of the money acquired from the victim AI, and 2.6 million won out of the money acquired from the above victims was paid for the provision of legal services as requested to the above victims. Therefore, the crime of fraud is not established, and 6.5 million won out of the money acquired from the victimP is repaid, and therefore, it is not constituted a crime of fraud. However, the court below guilty all of the facts charged, and there is an error of law that affected the judgment by

B. The first instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor for a term of three years and the second instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor for a defendant is so unreasonable that the sentence of a fine of three million won imposed on the defendant by the second instance court is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the case of this court 2014No91, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the case of this court 2013No3460, which is the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance, was consolidated in the oral proceedings of the oral proceedings. Each crime of the judgment of the court below is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be subject to a single sentence within the extent that aggravating concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained

However, even if the judgment below has such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victims from the investigation process.