The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts, the Defendant did not instruct the Co-defendant A (hereinafter “A”) to raise the operating fund of the Company with the cost of the construction from the suppliers, such as the victim J, N, and R, and the Defendant failed to perform the project by entering into a MOU for the sole crime of fraud, but the project was failed due to the failure of the competent authority to obtain authorization or permission for the change of the purpose of use of the land from the point of time. The Defendant did not have any intention to obtain fraud from the point of time. ③ With regard to the crime of embezzlement of the business of borrowing funds from the point of time, the mere accounting of the crime of embezzlement of the business of borrowing funds from the point of time cannot be deemed to have been embezzled since the borrowing of funds from the victim I (hereinafter “victim”) was not leaked. ④ As to the crime of embezzlement of the business of the corporation, the Defendant and the AD did not have embezzled the money from the damaged company.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The main facts in this part of the facts charged are consistent with the determination of mistake of facts

There are statements in A's investigative agency and court of original instance as evidence.

In other words, according to the direction of the defendant from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, the victim J, N, and R wishing to participate in the project executed by the defendant, and the defendant is the victim of this case.