The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, victims B and L.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal, the deadline for submission of the grounds for appeal, the summary of pleadings submitted after the deadline, and the rebuttals shall be examined to the extent that they supplement legitimate grounds for appeal.

A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts 1) 2017 Godan57 fraud, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 113 million from the complainant B is recognized. However, the Defendant is the victim’s apartment construction project in astronomical C (hereinafter “instant project”).

In light of the fact that the complainant was entitled to enforce the apartment building or that there was no statement that urgent funds for the construction of apartment houses are needed, and there is no fact that he would be repaid within three months from the loan of money. Considering the fact that the complainant was aware of the economic situation of the defendant, that the complainant was aware of the progress of the project of this case, and that the complainant was an investment, not a loan, the nature of the money remitted to the defendant by the complainant is not a loan, it is difficult to deem that the complainant remitted the money due to the deceptive act of the defendant, and that the criminal intent of the defraudation is not recognized. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant received KRW 200 million from L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “L”).

However, there is no fact that the defendant is scheduled to deliver a black box to M who is the representative director of L, to the Fire Control Agency and the Gangwon-do Fire Control Agency in light of light.

Considering the fact that, in light of the investment contract delivered by the Defendant to M and the attitude of M after investment, etc., the nature of the money remitted by M was not a loan, but a loan, and that M was only twice with the Defendant and remitted money to AB with the Defendant’s mother, it is difficult to deem that M remitted money due to the Defendant’s act.

In addition, the defendant has been operated.