All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

As to the crimes of subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the decision of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, since the defendant had reported the situation of the management of the defendant'sO operated at the time when he borrowed money from the victim F in detail to the victim, there is no deceiving the victim.

In addition, the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the borrowed money, etc. because he had been awarded a considerable amount of construction work from many trading companies at the time.

With respect to the crimes of Articles 5 through 7 of the decision of the court below, the defendant did not deceiving the victim when he borrowed money from the victim F or received security and guarantee from the victim F, and the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money by performing normally the construction work that he received from the Han L&C at the time.

As to the crime of Article 8 of the decision of the court below, the defendant had had the intent and ability to normally perform the construction ordered by Daewoo Construction at the time of receiving the guarantee from the victim F, but the construction was inevitably interrupted due to the unilateral change in the design, etc. of treatment Construction, so the defendant did not have the intention to acquire the amount of the deposit.

In relation to the crimes of Articles 9 through 11 of the decision of the court below, when the defendant received money from the victim Q Q as the down payment of Rteltel or borrowed money as security for U apartment, the defendant did not deceiving the victim since the defendant explained all of the circumstances that the defendant could not immediately register the transfer of ownership as to the above apartment, or that he could not immediately register the transfer of ownership, etc., and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation because he had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misconception of facts as to the criminal intent of deception and deception.

The sentence sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too big.