All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the legal principles) was committed against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). The Defendant did not deceiving the victim, nor did he had the intent to commit fraud. The Defendant had a friendly relationship with Cambodia’s general interest, and there is no relation between the fact that the Defendant had a friendly relationship with Cambodia’s dispositive act and the victim’s dispositive act.

① The Defendant did not have any false academic background, career, or friendly relationship, and the victim was aware that C was a synthetic photograph with the former President E.

② The Defendant only talked that the Defendant was in preparation for authorization and permission from the Cambodian Government, and received authorization and permission for a new urban development project.

There is no talking fact.

③ The Defendant explained that the actual city development project was to be used as a site for 300,000 square meters in the actual city development project, and that the remaining 5.7 million square meters would be resold to raise business funds, and that only the down payment was made after the conclusion of the sales contract for the site for the project. The victim was well aware of the Defendant’s plan for raising

④ The Defendant, while showing the design view taken by deceiving Q QR, requested funds to the victim.

the defendant had the intent to deceive or defraud the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(5) The defendant did not have any specific financing method or plan.

It is difficult to see it.

B) The Defendant in fraud borrowed KRW 15 million after explaining the victim’s purpose of use of the money, and actually used the money in accordance with its purpose. The Defendant is also aware that the French investment company J made an investment in D Co., Ltd., and paid expenses when establishing an account and opening an account. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit fraud.

2) The lower court rendered unfair sentencing.