The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

30. 30. 4

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant 1's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the legitimacy of filing a complaint against embezzlement and misunderstanding of the facts, the victim F confirmed the details of the passbook of the Defendant on January 24, 2014 and recognized the Defendant's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

Therefore, the fact that F filed a complaint against the Defendant on August 1, 2014, which was six months after the lapse of the time limit for filing a complaint under the law, is an incidental law.

Unlike this, F lawfully accused of the Defendant within the filing period of the complaint

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehending of legal principles.

misunderstanding the facts as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and misunderstanding the legal principles that the Defendant received money from F from each of the above crimes Nos. 1 through 14, 16, and 24 in the judgment of the court below. However, this does not mean that the Defendant received a large amount of compensation for losses from the building of the private teaching institute (hereinafter the above private teaching institute) operated by F in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter the above private teaching institute and the building of the private teaching institute of this case) and received it from F in accordance with the "business advisory contract concluded on April 16, 2013" (hereinafter the "business advisory contract of this case") and applied for reasonable compensation from F in relation to the private teaching institute building of this case, securing a substitute site for the expropriation of the private teaching institute building of this case, or receiving the commission from F in relation to loans from financial institutions, or the Defendant was expected to receive from F in advance or from F in return for borrowing money.

In addition, promissory notes in the face value of 650,000,000 won in Nos. 15 of the crime list in the holding of the court below are the case.