The judgment below

The part, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A person who has filed an appellate brief of mistake of facts may withdraw part of the grounds for appeal stated in the appellate court’s appellate brief on the date of trial, but may be limited to the withdrawal of the grounds for appeal, which would not again become the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the withdrawal of the grounds for appeal is effective

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1473, Mar. 28, 2013). In submitting each statement of grounds of appeal on December 2, 2013, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted mistake of facts and unfair sentencing against the lower judgment. While the defense counsel acknowledged the facts charged, the Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts and asserted unfair sentencing based on the premise that the facts recognized as part of the facts committed by the lower judgment and the criminal intent of the defrauded are recognized.

In addition, while the defendant and his defense counsel stated that they withdraw a mistake of facts against the judgment of the court below on the date of the first trial, they argued that there was a mistake of facts in recognizing the fact of deceitation in the summary of pleadings submitted later by the defense counsel. The defendant and his defense counsel stated that the grounds for appeal are only unreasonable and that there was a mistake of facts

Since the facts that the court below acknowledged the facts that the defendant and defense counsel maintain as part of the criminal facts or the criminal intent by deception are acknowledged, it shall be judged separately from the assertion of unfair sentencing. However, the summary of pleadings by the defense counsel submitted after the deadline for the statement of grounds of appeal is determined only to the extent it supplements

① The Defendant knew that an offer was in progress to the Gyeonggi Mutual Savings Bank that received a loan, and the Gyeonggi Mutual Savings Bank became aware of the commencement of the project, and ② the Defendant made an officetel to the victims (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”).