The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of this case by misapprehending the legal principles is one of the crimes committed on January 25, 2009 against the defendant in accordance with the habit of the same fraud as the crime, such as the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), etc., which was already established on January 25, 2009,

B. When the Defendant borrowed the instant money from the victims, the Defendant explained the purpose of borrowing the money from the R development proceeds without mentioning the victims of the N development, and provided a true explanation about the interest payment and the repayment plan, etc., and thus did not mislead the victims.

In addition, the Defendant, for the victims, committed a provisional registration on the instant land and the investment certificate issued by Jeju Redevelopment Partnership Co., Ltd. as a substitute payment. At the time, the Defendant had an intent and ability to repay to the Defendant since the Defendant had assets worth KRW 19.1 billion, including the Jeju Redevelopment Development Partnership’s investment certificate of KRW 15 billion, KRW 2050,000,000,000,000 for the purchase price bonds of the RR land, and KRW 15.1 billion for the Hyundai Frest and Hyundai Frest, and KRW 60,000,000,000,000,00

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same content in the lower court’s judgment regarding the assertion of misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s habitual fraud crime and each fraud crime of this case, which became final and conclusive, cannot be deemed as having a single comprehensive crime in light of the period of crime, duration, conspiracy relationship, deception method and content, etc.

In a thorough review of the judgment of the court below compared with the evidence records, the decision of the court below on this part is justified and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. First of all, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is the victims.