1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B is reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years.

2...

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant B (1) mismisunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as follows, the lower court found Defendant B (1) guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud.

Defendant B was entitled to operate a restaurant in a way of making expenses to senior public officials, executive officers, employees, etc. who want to operate a restaurant at the construction site through its partners, such as BC and D.

According to the above business method, Defendant B received the investment from investors first, and paid the investment in the above money, and there is no money to receive the investment after having given the right to operate the restaurant first and having received the investment. Accordingly, there is always a risk that the investors are unable to receive the right to operate the restaurant.

(b) The investors were aware of all the above business methods of Defendant B, and in light of Defendant B’s career or actual acceptance cases, Defendant B’s intent or ability to receive a restaurant operation right at the construction site. Thus, even if the investors were unable to receive a restaurant operation right at the construction site due to sudden breakdown, Defendant B deceivings investors on the receiving of a restaurant operation right even if the investors were unable to receive a restaurant operation right at the construction site.

There is no relationship between deception and the act of disposal based on deception.

In particular, Defendant B was in a partnership relationship with the past

AC and the construction site with the enemy in receipt of the right to operate the restaurant, the Z fully recognized the above circumstances.

Abrupt D is not a simple employee but a partner who recruits investors as BC, etc., and Defendant B finally ordered D to have the right to operate a restaurant at a specific construction site.

Not only did they not speak, but also D did not know that it made any speech to N, AK, and AL couple and received much investment money.

Catch U from April 2008.