The judgment below

Of the 2015estest 6297, Nos. 10,18,20 (victim N parts), and 22 (victimO, P.) in the list of offenses listed in the [Attachment 6297].

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. The Defendant was unaware of the fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to part of the crimes before the judgment became final and conclusive) 1) “The Defendant was in violation of the Sanitary Control Act of 2016, 471, which was established and sold with a strong height, or kept for sale.”

AG is only an act of refusing the defendant's direction and making the defendant's instructions in a single manner.

2) The Defendant’s fraud of “2016 Highest 1676” means that the Defendant would not present the Defendant’s payment of the check to the victim within the period for presentation of the payment.

such words as the domestic affairs, and as such;

Even if there are existing claims against the defendant of the victim, and therefore, AV Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Co., Ltd.") has no special benefit.

Therefore, fraud is not established.

3) The Promissory Notes 1-2 of the 2016 Highest 3225 Highest 3, 1-25 Highest 3, 201, which was issued by BI to give an opportunity to lend funds upon request by BH, and is not a simple check note.

In addition, I settled bills and recovered bills normally.

Therefore, the defendant deceivings the victim.

It can not be said that there was no intention to commit fraud against the defendant.

4) 2. Criminal facts of the 2016 Highest 3225 (Seoul Highest 3225) The Defendant agreed to supply rice normally after receiving a normal supply of rice, and paid a normal price to the account of the victim or BS or in cash.

Even if the outstanding amount was incurred, such as the victim's statement, it was only caused by the suspension of self-supply.

Therefore, there was no deception, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

5) The fraud of “2016 Highest 333,” was involved by CX in the process of attracting investment funds to victims BV, and the Defendant directly deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.