The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In addition, the victim F and K did not enter into a contract for the operation of the business of the defendant at the time of entering into the contract, but did not supply the goods because the financial situation of the defendant could not be predicted after entering into the contract, even though there was no problem for the business operation of the defendant at the time of entering into the contract. Therefore, there was no deception against the victims, and there was no extent of fraud by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

Since the victim Q made an investment in the agency operation through R, which is the victim's son, who was well aware of the financial situation of the defendant Q by serving as a general manager and a financial employee of the defendant company, the victim Q did not have committed deception against the victim, and the defendant did not have any intent to commit the crime of defraudation of the loan.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

In light of the fact that the defendant's wrongful assertion of sentencing is divided in depth into his mistake, the victim K paid 12 million won to the victim M after the occurrence of the case, the victim K paid 16 million won to the victim M, the victim Q received 98 million won in return for investment in the part of 10 million won and paid 2.8 million won in return for investment in the part of 50 million won in the case of 10 million won in Q, the victim Q received 99.8 million won in return for investment, and the defendant received 2.8 million won in return for investment in the part of 10 million won in the case of 50 million won in the case of 50 million won in the victim Q, the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act,

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment is rendered.