Defendant

B All appeals against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B1) Of the lower judgment, there was a mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the case 2018 Godan6777, among the judgment below, Defendant B, through J, has borrowed KRW 70 million from the victim H. However, there was no deception by the said victim as stated in the first instance judgment. In addition, the said victim had the intent and ability to subcontract telecommunications construction works of the E-Industrial Complex development project, used the said money as actual business expenses, and could have repaid the said money upon collection of the claim against the Plaintiff N and S., so there was no intention to defraudation. 2) Each of the lower judgment of unfair sentencing (Article 1: 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor of the lower court, and Articles 2 and 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor of the lower court) on each of the lower judgment is unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted in the first instance judgment concerning the part of acquittal against Defendant A among the judgment of the first instance, which was submitted by the victim H, the witness J's investigation agency or the first instance court, such as the statement at the investigation agency or the first instance court, the first instance court rendered a judgment not to be guilty against Defendant A even if Defendant A conspired with Defendant B to recognize the sufficient fact of deceiving the victim H by deceiving the victim He and deceiving the money from the victim. Of the judgment of first instance, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the acquittal part against Defendant A, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court's judgment on the guilty part against Defendant B (one and half years of imprisonment) of the judgment of the

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the first instance court determined that Defendant B, as stated in its holding, deceiving the victim H and defrauded KRW 70 million, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, and the same assertion as the summary of Defendant B’s grounds for appeal.