The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) As to the fraud of the victim D (2018 Highest 2013 case), the Defendant himself/herself is a corporation B (hereinafter “B”).

) The Defendant was preparing for the business of the large-scale Smarket Distribution Center and agreed to receive 1 trillion won investments from Co., Ltd. D. The victim heard the above business plan of the Defendant and asked to change her jobs. The Defendant recommended the head of the business headquarters in relation to the distribution center business prepared as above, and the victim D paid KRW 26 million as security deposit according to the business headquarters system. Furthermore, the Defendant was unable to repay the victim’s security deposit to the wind caused by fraud from G, etc. under Article 2(2) below, and the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire the Defendant.

2) As to the fraud of the victim G (2018 Highest 2478 case), the Defendant, as seen above, was preparing for the business of the Smarket Distribution Center, was a new apartment building project related to the “W” site construction project located in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant apartment construction project”).

was recommended to do so.

The Defendant refused the above solicitation, but at the time, M, who was using the Defendant’s office, said that “I will have a X’s punishment as a director. As the purchase cost of the site and the construction cost of the site were loaned through X, and the construction work would also be allowed to do so.”

Since then, K, an employee of M, asked the victim G and removal work related to the new apartment construction project of this case to the victim.

While the defendant refused to implement the project, he/she accepted it on the premise that M, K, etc. is responsible for it, and the removal work was conducted at the intervals of the above victim, and only the above victim affixed B’s official seal on the contract document prepared in advance.

B. The lower court’s decision is unreasonable.