The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant alleged the credibility of the Defendant’s confession statement claiming the misunderstanding of facts, which led to a confession of all the facts charged in this case.

However, since the defendant was detained on December 7, 2018 immediately before the prosecution of this case, it is only false confessions because it is necessary to release the defendant's spouse suffering from kidne disease due to blood cancer in order to care for the defendant's spouse.

Therefore, the defendant's confession statement in the court below is not reliable.

With respect to the existence of deceiving the assertion about the crime of paragraph (1) of the crime as stated in the judgment below and the intention of defraudation, the defendant agreed with the victim as an agent to perform all the duties, such as reporting and substitute payment of taxes, etc. to be imposed on the share of 50% of the C Tourist hotel (hereinafter “the hotel of this case”), and received a total of one billion won by adding the tax amount to be paid by substitute, consultation fees and fees.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of deception.

On November 29, 2012 and January 31, 2013, the Defendant paid capital gains tax of KRW 203,282,010, and local income tax of KRW 20,328,200, and capital gains tax of KRW 100,00,00,000 paid around November 27, 2014, respectively.

Since the defendant lends the amount equivalent to the above amount to the victim, 52,800,000 won corresponding to the interest on the above amount shall be deducted from the amount of fraud under this part.

The defendant alleged as to the crime of paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment of the court below has lent KRW 150 million to K of the victim's spouse, and received payment in the same manner as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime in the judgment below.

Therefore, the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of deceiving the victim.

The court below's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

The original judgment and this court are legitimate.