The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the facts charged in this case, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Economic Crimes Act") is abbreviationd.

With respect to the charge of violation (Fraud) and fraud against the victim F, the Defendant merely borrowed money from the victim F as a share investment name, and the Defendant is an attorney-at-law, a private village loan exchange or E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).

The judgment of the court of first instance, which recognizes it as a violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the crime of fraud as stated in its holding, is not the fraud of the victim I and K, but the victim I and K, even though the money was remitted to F upon F's request and the money was not stolen by E's listing, the judgment of the court of first instance is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

B. The first sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be deemed to have taken money by deceiving victims under the name of substitution of private loan or E listing as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① The victims paid to the Defendant an amount equivalent to KRW 1.165 million in total (the victim F is KRW 965 million) on the ground that the Defendant granted the same interest payment as the previous lending terms and benefits such as the provision of corporate cards, in lieu of loans to private village E, an attorney-at-law, who is an attorney-at-law, or that the victims paid the amount of KRW 1.165 million in total (the victim F is KRW 965 million) in the process of demanding money.