The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim company”)

In relation to the fraud against the victim, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the intention of deceiving the defendant, because the defendant knew that the certificate of consolidated balance of 60 billion won was forged. Even if the defendant deceivings the defendant, since the defendant knew that he did not have the capacity to accept D, there is no causation between the defendant's deception and the mistake of the victim company, and since the victim company paid the expenses to be borne by the victim company according to the terms of the contract, it cannot be deemed that there is a causation between the mistake of the victim company and the above expenses. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) As to the fraud against the victim T, the defendant did not know that the contract for the construction of the GUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination as to whether there was the intention of deception in relation to each fraud, and the lower court also stated in detail the judgment on this point. However, the lower court determined that “the contract was concluded” from the 8th to the 9th page of the lower judgment, and that “the contract was rescinded” from the 11th to the 12th 12th 13th 12 and that “the contract was rescinded” was “the party would not conclude.”