The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant merely believed the horses of H at the time of the instant case and did not know that the horses of H were false facts, there was no awareness of deception, and ② there was no intention or intent to acquire money from the victims or to commit a crime, since all the money received from the victims were delivered to H at the time of the instant case and were to receive money from H.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the elements of fraud and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Where an appeal against a conviction is filed, the order for compensation shall be transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case, but the accused did not object to the part of the order for compensation of the original judgment (the date of the first trial of the original trial explicitly stated that the part of the order is not disputed), even if examined ex officio, the grounds for cancelling or amending the part of the order for compensation of the original judgment cannot be found. Therefore, the part of the order for compensation of the original judgment

The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles also argued to the same purport as or similar to the grounds for appeal, and the court below made proposals such as ① the Defendant’s investment in the business of leasing sand position machinery from H around 201 to 201, which led to the Defendant’s work as an employee at the cafeteria in the old-U.S. city around 2008, which led to the relationship between H and his work as an employee; ② from around 2011 to 2012, the Defendant was frequently dive from H’s house; and ② the Defendant’s investment in the business of leasing sand position machinery from H in 201 or the “beyer business that supplies solvents to the store.”