The judgment below

Of them, the part of the compensation order for the defendant case and F is reversed.

Each judgment of the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts as follows, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) In relation to the new construction of officetel in Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the company borrowed KRW 550 million for each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and repaid the loan thereafter. For E, the company J (hereinafter “J”) obtained KRW 1.40 million as investment funds for the new construction of V buildings (ground 36, 36 underground floors), but the company failed to perform its business due to the defective construction of the two industry companies in charge of site and construction under the Vietnam-gu Act and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “BB industry”).

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the Defendant had shown F and E a copy of the passbook in the name of J, which was falsely made as if he had taken investment money from another person, and had no real entity, deceiving F and E to make an investment in the Htel business (hereinafter “Htel business”).

(2) Even though the Defendant was granted KRW 2.4 billion from F under the pretext of investment in the construction of the V building in Vietnam, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on this part on the premise that F would have paid 9% interest of 9% per annum and by deceiving F to pay 2.4 billion won by December 31, 2008.

(3) On October 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 350 million from G to December 4, 2009, when he received the second PF loans of KRW 80 billion for the construction of V buildings around 2009. However, the Defendant borrowed KRW 350 million from G to September 4, 2009.