The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not contain any particular grounds for appeal in the Defendant’s petition of appeal, and the grounds for appeal filed by the Defendant and the defense counsel on February 15, 2017 for the supplement of the grounds for appeal filed on February 15, 2017 (Provided, That the grounds for appeal were submitted after the lapse of the period not timely filed, but the grounds for appeal are stated only as the grounds for appeal. The Defendant and the defense counsel of the appointed parties thereafter stated that the grounds for appeal were the grounds for unfair appeal at the third trial date of the trial of the relevant trial. Thus, in principle, only the grounds for appeal are legitimate.

However, on May 17, 2017, the statement of reasons for appeal filed by the private legal counsel on May 17, 2017 (2) also states the following purport of sentencing as well as the purport of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. Thus, the judgment is made by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles for the benefit of the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the crime of defraudation by fraud in attached Form 17, 18) 1) is a misunderstanding of the fact that G had the victim conduct an act of disposal, such as transfer of real estate rights and preparation of a fair deed as stated in this part of the facts charged, under the pretext of the above repayment, such as D’s investment money, etc., and the Defendant did not have any participation at all and there was no intention of defraudation at the time.

2) Since the misunderstanding of the legal principles did not acquire any profit through the crime of defraudation as stated in this part of the facts charged, the amount of damage for each of the above crimes shall not be included in the calculation of the amount of profit as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

B. In light of the circumstances such as the recognition of most of the unfair crimes of sentencing and reflection of mistake, the fact that the remaining crimes have become economically difficult and economically difficult, and the situation where it is in the position to support a decent family due to cancer, etc., the lower court’s sentencing (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.