All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) there exists the Defendant’s independent technology as stated in the facts charged; (b) the Defendant deceptioned the Victim K or did not take property or property gains from the Defendant; (c) the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money from the Victim P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”); and (c) used the borrowed money for the business of R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “R”), not for the personal purpose.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of each fraud in its ruling. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

(Defense Counsel of the defendant) at the third trial date of the trial, "the victim P was obtained by deception."

The amount claimed was stated to the effect that the Defendant’s technical use is the price for the Defendant’s technical use and is not the borrowed money. However, this part of the assertion that the mistake in fact was alleged on the ground of fact-misunderstanding, but it cannot be found that there was no reason for ex officio investigation in relation to the fact-finding, since it was merely the subsequent filing of the appeal with the deadline for submission of the written appeal.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The misunderstanding of the facts concerning the fraud of victims E, F, and G, and even if the victims of misunderstanding of the legal principles have acquired the R’s share equivalent to the investment amount, it is not having any property value, and R was operated solely by the Defendant’s intent.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fraud against the victim H, I, AI, and J, and the Defendant expressed an intention or ability to build a server to X.