The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant committed a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in collusion with the representative L of K Co., Ltd. of the victim agricultural company (hereinafter “victim”) to sell Pyeongtaek-si G (hereinafter “the instant land”) after completing the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the victimized company and by dividing the profits therefrom.

As above, the defendant deceivingd the damaged company.

Although this part of the facts charged cannot be seen, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The Defendant did not have been involved in the crime of forging the power of attorney in the name of I (hereinafter “the power of attorney in this case”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) Since L’s exercise of the above investigation document was known to the effect that the power of attorney in this case was prepared formally, even if the Defendant interfered with L, it cannot be recognized as a crime of attempted execution of the above investigation document.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) The Defendant asserted that the judgment of the court below is identical to that of the above facts as alleged in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail.

B) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the circumstances stated in the lower court’s judgment, namely, ① the representative L of the victimized company was introduced by Defendant A through his/her pro-Japanese on June 2016 and did not fully know Defendant E, D, and F.