The part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the compensation order and the part of the judgment of the court below 2 and 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant .

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Of the judgment of the court below of the misunderstanding of facts, the defendant received KRW 223 million from the victim F to the case [200 million], but the defendant received the above money under the name of investment, not the borrowed money. Since the defendant had a natural seat with a considerable property value at the time, he/she had the intent and ability to fully repay the above money, so that the defendant cannot be recognized as a criminal intent of defraudation of facts, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the fact that each of the money listed in the judgment of the court below was remitted from the victim's assertion that the money was not borrowed by the defendant with respect to the case [2012 senior group2076] and [2012 senior group3076]. However, at the time, the above money was used by AH, the husband of the defendant, and the above money was used by AH, the husband of the defendant, and there was an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the judgment of the court below convict

In light of the fact that at the time of argument that there is no criminal intent to obtain fraud, the defendant has a natural seat with considerable property value, and that the defendant has delivered a bill equivalent to KRW 350 million at the face value, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although it is not possible to recognize the criminal intent to obtain fraud. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous. The defendant's loan of KRW 30 million as of July 22, 2005 and the loan of KRW 30 million as of September 7, 2005 alleged by the victim C as of September 1, 2005, which is the same student of each victim C, filed a complaint with the defendant on September 1, 2009, including KRW 170 million,000,000 already punished by the defendant, but

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the fact that the defendant received KRW 15 million from the victim AC for the case is recognized.