The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Fraud against I (crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below) was committed by the Defendant with intention or ability to sell scrap metal, etc. emitted from G Contac, to I, and there was no intention to deception.

In other words, at the time when the Defendant and E Co., Ltd. (E) entered into a contract for the removal of G Condo on April 13, 2012, D presents the transfer contract and the sale contract for the tourist enterprise, and the Defendant is entitled to contract the removal work to D.

The defendant was believed to have the right to dispose of the scrap metal included in the contents of the removal work.

Trusted.

2) Fraud against M (criminal facts stated in the lower judgment) did not recognize that the Defendant was unable to remove G contact at the time of concluding a contract with M, and there was an intention or ability to pay M the cost of removal work.

Upon receipt of advance payment from D, the Defendant intended to pay M for the removal work, but did not receive advance payment from D and did not pay M.

The Defendant asserts that the meaning of advance payment of 20% of the contents of the subcontract agreement between the Defendant and E is the same as the input of equipment, and that the removal is paid with 30% additional 50% when the removal is completed, and the remainder 50% is paid when the removal is completed.

or Limited Company BF (hereinafter referred to as “BF”) had the ability to pay the removal cost with the price received by selling the non-stock, etc.

B) There is no problem that the Defendant told M to the effect that “A sales contract with I had already been invalidated or, as the same applies, securing 30% of scrap metal.”

The removal cost of KRW 130 million paid by M is not paid as a deposit for scrap metal, which is not from KRW 120,000 to KRW 130,000 per square meter, and from KRW 9,600 to KRW 11.0.