The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the party deliberation shall be borne by the defendant.

1. At both weeks of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Ecomel located in D (hereinafter “the instant franchise”) waivers the Defendant’s attempt to purchase from the former owner N, and subsequent to this, the Defendant is merely merely a substitute for the payment of the purchase price of the Macom, which is actually operated by L, other than the public prosecution, and the Defendant is merely a substitute for the F. Accordingly, the details added to the respective part of the receipt as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, not an alteration, are written in accordance with the substantive relationship.

In addition, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges against the defendant on the ground that the defendant actually worked, and set up a right to lease on a deposit basis under the name of the former wife G for the purpose of securing the amount of money paid to F, and that the lease agreement with R, etc. also established a genuine lease relationship. Therefore, the defendant presented a solution to the above right to retention and right to lease on a deposit basis, etc. to the victim, and it is merely an acceptance of the defendant's proposal and delivery of money after the victim followed profits and losses, but it constitutes a conflict of interest.

2. The following circumstances are acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below.

① After being awarded a successful bid for the instant cartel, the Defendant first, who sought to find the Defendant, would leave the building without selling it at the successful bid price. In the last time, the Defendant was called “general manager,” and the Defendant demanded KRW 60 million in return for the Defendant’s request to resolve all issues of J, G, Do, Lessee, Lessee, Lessee, and S, which is the lien holder. However, the Defendant refused the request, but failed even if the Defendant came to execute the surrender directly through the enforcement officer, and at that time, the Defendant could not accept the telecom for a period of one year due to the lien.