The guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, and the conviction portion of the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. The judgment of the court below in Article 2 (1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits was dismissed as to the violation of the Labor Standards Act among the facts charged in the instant case, and the judgment of the court below convicted the Defendants of violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits. Accordingly, the part of the dismissal of the above public prosecutor

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court of the first instance is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court of the second instance and the judgment of the third party.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) on the following grounds, Defendant A did not have the intention of deception and deception, and Defendant A did not have the intent of repayment and ability, but did not repay the borrowed money and the invested money to the victims due to the difficulty of the Aintegic project, the judgment of the court of first instance which found otherwise guilty was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment. (A) Defendant A used the borrowed money from Defendant A for the purpose of using the borrowed money from the victim I as snowburgical surgery expenses and the cost for transferring the registration of the Sung-gu J apartment, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, for the purpose of using the borrowed money to I, and Defendant A did not say that “I would without fail to sell the apartment after two months” and I lent KRW 198 million to Defendant A with a long-term friendship of the Defendant A, who is well aware of the economic situation.

B) The fraud of the victim L was committed by Defendant A, under the agreement with the victim L, opened a collection of the trade name “N” instead of P, and paid interest promised to L. With respect to the opening of the “R” business, Defendant A, who entered into a sales contract with respect to the “R” business, provided the Plaintiff with a true explanation of all the circumstances related to R, and actually operated R by opening and operating the business. 2) The Defendant A, who was sentenced to unfair sentencing, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 2.