The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, did not defraud 10.6 million won from the victim D, and 23.57 million won from the victim L comprehensive development (ju), as stated in this part of the facts charged, and acquired 11 million won from the victim L comprehensive development (ju). However, only the Defendant acquired 3 million won from the victim D and 11 million won from the victim L comprehensive development (ju).

B. The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) in the investigative agency, E made a statement to the effect that all the victims deposited in the account managed by them and M were remitted to the Defendant’s designated account or the Defendant was ordered to do so; (ii) objective financial data, such as the certificate of transfer and the details of passbook transactions, etc., supporting the above statement; and (iii) the Defendant consistently made a statement to the effect that E was given KRW 10 million with respect to the forgery of the appraisal report issued to the victim D with respect to the forgery of the document related to appraisal issued to the victim L comprehensive development, etc.; (iii) in full view of the fact that the Defendant made a statement to the purport that all the charges of this case are recognized in the first instance trial, the Defendant’s assertion that each of the above facts charged by each of the victims were fully acknowledged through the victim’s fraud is insufficient.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, this case is a case where the defendant forged documents related to appraisal and commits fraud by using such documents, and the crime is committed in light of the applicable criminal law.