The judgment below

The guilty part and the victim C shall be reversed by not guilty part on the fraud of KRW 90 million.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the fraud against the victim J among the convictions), the Defendant did not have any reason to make a false statement while making an investment in the land development project cost to J by receiving an investment cost necessary for land development project.

If the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million to J, the J shall pay to the Defendant in full at the same time the amount of KRW 50 million to the Defendant. The J shall pay KRW 10 million on September 30, 2010, KRW 30 million on October 6, 2010, KRW 10 million on October 28, 2010, and KRW 10 million on October 28, 2010 to the Defendant and was refunded from the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant had approximately KRW 30 million claims against A.

Therefore, the Defendant made a false statement to J as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime committed in the judgment below.

It can not be seen that the J has the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the acquitted portion, the consistent statement by the victim and R, N’s statement, and the Defendant’s confirmation letter prepared by the victim, etc., the Defendant, through N around August 2010, received a transfer of KRW 40 million on the pretext that the Defendant leased a P golf course in the SwitzerlandO and operated the business, and then again requested the victim to make an additional investment again, and received a transfer of KRW 90 million from the victim by deceiving the victim, and the Defendant acquired KRW 40 million and KRW 90 million from the victim by deceiving the victim.

may be appointed by a person.

However, since the court below acquitted the 40 million won and 90 million won, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court rendered unfair sentencing.