The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Each document submitted by a defense counsel after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal shall be considered only to the extent that it supplements legitimate grounds for appeal.

The Defendant and the defense counsel argued that there was misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the fraud of the victim P and X among the facts charged in the instant case (Articles 2 and 3 of the indictment), but the Defendant asserted that there was a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the point of occupational embezzlement (Article 6 of the indictment). However, on the fifth trial date of the trial of the first instance, the Defendant and the defense counsel withdrawn all of the errors of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining part except for the fraud of Q and AD.

In light of the fact that the victim Q was in a relationship with the defendant as to the fraud of the victim Q Q, not only proposed the business partnership between the defendant and the defendant, but also worked as executive officers with considerable shares in AB (hereinafter “stock company” in the name of the company”) and D, and that he actively recommended investment to the branch and did not make investment, the victim Q was aware of the falsity of the defendant’s educational background and business plan, and there was no fact that the defendant deceptioned Q Q Q.

In addition, AY, the actual victim of this part of the facts charged, invested KRW 60 million in accordance with the request of the victim Q, and the Defendant did not deceiving AY, and the victim Q, who managed KRW 60 million received from AY, used a considerable part of the facts charged for personal use.

Therefore, it is not true that the victim QY deceivings AY and defrauds the 60 million won, but the defendant deceivings Q Q, thereby deceiving the victim's 60 million won.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine in determining that the Defendant by deceiving the victim Q Q, thereby deceiving 60 million won.

The crime of fraud against AD is committed.