The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal and the submission period and the defense counsel’s written opinion presented after the appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of legitimate grounds for appeal.

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) 2015 high group 8000 cases are the projects led by G to purchase of land and transfer of applicants as stated in this part of the facts charged. The Defendant is only an investor who heard the progress from G and made an investment.

At the time G, in order to raise investors in order to prepare intermediate payments and balance when concluding a land purchase contract and paying down payment, and concluding an investment advisory contract with the investment advisory company of the United States, and obtaining business approval from Cambodia, the Defendant had no choice but to trust G in depth.

Based on the documents and information received from G, the Defendant explained the project to the victim D, and delivered the investment money received from the victim D to G, in turn, to the Defendant’s funds.

After that, the above project was normally carried out, but the local real estate price of the local real estate in Stainn Stain in 2008 has decreased rapidly, and the project has been suspended.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, there was a criminal intent of deceiving or deceiving the defendant;

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Of the part of the 2016 Highest 5155 case, the Defendant: (a) received an investment request from N, a subsequent jury, to make an investment necessary for the implementation of the foregoing project; and (b) introduced the said project to the Victim K and recommended its investment.

At the time, the defendant was promised to be responsible for the principal of the investment in the sense of responsibility as the broker with the knowledge that the victim K was aware of the loss of the investment.