The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principle) is that the Defendant provided a promissory note received from T, interested in D and fees, received KRW 17.5 million from the said note, and delivered it to T as it is, and the victim E was unaware of who is the victim E, and therefore there was no intention to commit fraud against the victim.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, the record reveals that the Defendant was sentenced on April 24, 2014 by the Suwon District Court to imprisonment with labor for the crime of forging securities, etc. on June 27, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 27, 2014. The crime for which the judgment became final and the instant crime are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, with regard to the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and after examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence, the judgment of the first instance cannot be maintained any longer.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on the grounds of appeal: (a) around August 2012, the Defendant received a request from the victim E to find funds worth KRW 10 billion from D and introduced F as if the Defendant had such ability to mobilize funds; (b) the Defendant was well aware that F was an employee working in a licensed real estate agent’s office, and was well aware that it was not able to do so; (c) the Defendant had F deposited a promissory note amounting to KRW 10 billion for the forged face value into the F’s account; (d) had the F deposited the passbook into the F’s account; and (e) received and delivered a copy of the passbook, etc. to D directly; and (e) the Defendant received and delivered the said promissory note from T. However, the said promissory note at an investigative agency.