All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the lower court determined as follows: (a) on August 10, 201, 201, prepared by M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) and R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”), that the “Yudse Production Cooperation Agreement” cannot be deemed as a simple MO with no legal binding force; (b) the relationship between M and R, 1 billion won lending circumstances, and M did not have any plan or ability to produce Yudse within the nearest city of M; and (c) the Defendant, the representative director of M, as the Defendant, did not seem to have had the intention or ability to produce Yudse, which is an affiliated company, was not deemed to have had the intention or ability to produce R or Z to produce Yudse, which is a representative director of R, thereby, that the Defendant could in turn receive KRW 1 billion from the victim Co., Ltd.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to the issuance of promissory notes as stated in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged (excluding the portion not guilty in the original trial) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the

2...