All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

AO's imprisonment with labor for three years, and the defendant A is the first, third, the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant AO 1) In relation to Defendant A’s fraudulent conduct on March 20, 2007, Defendant A’s judgment of the lower court (1) 1, 2007, Defendant AO did not deceiving the victim S in collusion with Defendant A, and only she was the victim for the first time in relation to his Ulsan CW business.

(2) In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on May 15, 2007, the defendant AO provided the defendant with the implied permission of the CZ, the wife, as security, the apartment owned by the victim and did not deceiving the victim.

(3) With respect to the fraud of July 23, 2009, it is difficult to deem that the right to collateral security established on the real estate in the name of the CZ under the agreement of July 23, 2009 became conclusive and conclusive, and the victim only gains new profits, and that any property damage has occurred.

B) The joint defendant AP (hereinafter “AP”) of the lower court in relation to the collection of earth and stone in the military as stated in the facts charged in this part of the lower judgment.

(ii) Defendant AP and Defendant AO merely failed to participate in the business due to various circumstances, such as non- cooperation by the relevant parties, lack of funds due to the lapse of the period, failure to fulfill the terms and conditions of investment, etc., in the process of jointly conducting the business, such as the victims and Zs, which are investors, etc., with the intent of fraud. In addition, Defendant AO provided the real estate trusted at the time of being invested by the victims as collateral, and provided the real estate trusted to the victims at the time of being invested by the victims. At the time of being invested by the victims, both the BA and the victims were known, and DefendantO was also aware of both the fact of the trust and the actual parties to the trust, and DefendantO did not receive the funds from the victims or took part in the use thereof. 2) The decision of the court below on unreasonable sentencing, Article 1 and 3.