The judgment of the court of first instance (including the portion not guilty, excluding the part of the application for compensation order) and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (each of the lower judgment) and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant withdrawn the grounds for appeal for mistake of the remaining facts on the six-time trial date of the first instance trial.

① In the case of No. 1 [Attachment 1] Crimes List 1-1 through 74 (victim I), 1-2 through 107, 109 through 129 (victimO), 1-3 year through 96 (victim K) and 1-5 year through 511 (victimN) of the List of Crimes, the amount of investment profits will be returned to the victims who make an investment, even if they make an investment.

In other words, the victims are not accused because they received money and actually returned the proceeds to the principal of the investment.

The defendant did not have any intention to deception because he had an intent to make an investment return after investing in real estate with actual money.

② The lower court’s judgment [Attachment 1] In the case of KRW 1,200,000,000 per annum 1,000 won among the crimes against 2 victimsN of the daily list of crimes, the payment of the money lent to the victim is merely a receipt of payment, instead of receiving the money as investment money for the land at the time of harmony, as in other parts of the lower court rendered not guilty. The victim’s statement cannot be trusted.

2) The punishment sentenced by each court below to the defendant (the first instance court: the imprisonment of eight years, the second instance court; the imprisonment of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. In the case of KRW 100 million per annum 3, 4, and 5 of the crimes charged by the lower court No. 1 of the charge against the prosecutor (the lower court’s judgment of the first instance court), the victim, as described in the facts charged, can be sufficiently recognized by the statement of the victim’s credibility, by means of the victim’s reliable statement that the victim acquired the victim by deceiving the Defendant under the name of investment in the land subject to the time of integrification,

However, the court below rejected the credibility of the victim's statement and found the lack of evidence.

On this part, it was judged that it was not guilty.

The judgment of the court below is correct.