Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of second instance and the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of concluding a contract with the victim, E Co., Ltd. was under normal operation, at the time of entering into a contract with the victim of the fraud related to the investment funds during the first instance judgment of Defendant A (A1).

The starting point of the overdue payment of wages is October 2015.

Pursuant to the Fund Investment Contract, 4 million won was paid every month.

The victim invested only KRW 580,000,000 out of the agreed investment amount of KRW 700,000.

Defendant

A was unable to repay the investment money because the construction of CE-free telecom has not been completed at the time of Pocheon City.

Defendant

A did not deceiving the victim.

B) Of the first instance judgment, Defendant A was under the process of the construction of a non-person telecom with respect to promissory notes, and Defendant A was preparing for the transfer of ownership and the authorization and permission under the name of the victim.

In addition to E, a lessee is also required to become the issuer of a promissory note against the landowner and the owner.

Defendant

A did not deceiving the victim.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In fact mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles on Defendant A) Defendant A’s speech that Defendant A’s deception of 1.3 billion won borrowed 1.3 billion won out of the first instance judgment against Defendant A to return 30% of the investment funds and 30% of the profits within one year was not likely to be realized from the beginning.

Defendant

A did not carry out any construction work even after the delivery of KRW 1.3 billion, and did not inform the victims of the purchase of the land during the period of time.

Since it is not possible to construct an unauthorized telecom and return investment funds even if money was received as a pretext of additional construction cost and land purchase cost in the absence of the agreed terms, fraud is established even if part of the money received from the injured party was used for the telecom construction.

B) The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes in the second instance against the Defendants.