Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The defendant shall obtain money from M who is an applicant for compensation 17,531,416 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In regard to the fraud in the paragraph 2-A of Article 2015Da3531, decided in the judgment of the court below, Defendant had the intention or ability to refund the lease deposit to the above victim at the time of concluding a lease agreement with the victim L/C on December 8, 2009, and thus, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B) As to the fraud described in Article 2015-Ma437(3) of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant did not say “E” to the victim M and N as one’s own ownership. Even if the Defendant said “E” to the victim M and N, this would not affect the conclusion of the victim M and N’s lease agreement, and thus, the causal relationship was severed, and the Defendant was capable of returning the lease deposit to the above victim at the time of concluding the lease agreement with the victim M and M on December 9, 2011, and thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant against the prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. As to the fraud described in paragraph 2-A of Article 2015-Ma3531, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the grounds of evidence, such as “2015-Ma3531,” among the summary of the evidence as indicated in the lower judgment, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim L, from the lower court’s judgment to December 8, 2009, as to Dong-gu E.