The judgment below

The guilty part (including the part not guilty) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is misunderstanding the facts of the Defendant or misunderstanding of the legal principles: The Defendant, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the Victim J., purchased K real estate in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul from the Victim J, obtained a loan from the said real estate as collateral, appropriated the purchase price and construction costs of the said real estate, and obtained a comprehensive consent to use the victim J’s name in the whole process of sale, and there was an intention or ability to repay KRW 640,000,000,000, a balance of the real estate

The Defendant entered into a sales contract with the actual buyer of the above real estate under the name of the victim J, and the seller I was aware of the fact of lending the above name, and thus, not the victim J, but the Defendant was obligated to pay the purchase price to the seller. As such, the Defendant suffered property loss incurred by the victim, who was liable for the remainder of the sale of the above real estate, to the seller for the obligation equivalent to KRW 640 million, or the Defendant acquired property profits equivalent to

shall not be deemed to exist.

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The fact of the inspection, the forgery of the private document and the exercise of the above investigation document (not guilty part) entrusted the defendant with the authority to seal the forged loan certificate as the guarantor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The victim E recognizes the owner of the F land in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul as H, and did not deliver it to H, even though the defendant paid KRW 30 million for the above land trading agreement, in recognition of the fraud against the victim E.

Even if the victim E was aware of the owner of the above land as the defendant, the defendant was unable to obtain full ownership of the above land from the victim E, so the defendant was guilty of deceptive act or of defraudation.

The punishment of the court below is too unfair.