The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the victim J's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

A. If there is a provision of property due to deception in fraud involving deception of property, it itself constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing on the victim's property, thereby constituting a crime of fraud. It does not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud even if considerable consideration has been paid, or there has not been any damage to the victim's entire property.

Therefore, even if the price is partially paid or the collateral is provided in fraud, the amount acquired by deceit is not the difference between the value of the property that was provided by the injured party and the value of the property that was provided (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do1040, Jul. 9, 199; 2000Do1899, Jul. 7, 2000).B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged (excluding part of the reasons charged) by applying Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter referred to as the “former Specific Economic Crimes Act”).

(c)

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the amount of profit obtained by acquiring property under Article 3 (1) 2 of the former Specific Economic Crimes Act.

2. According to the record as to the victim T's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and argued the mistake of facts as to this part of the charges on the grounds of appeal, and argued the mistake of facts as to this part of the charges.