The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Two years of imprisonment.

The Defendant did not receive from the victim B the amount of KRW 36 million per annum No. 13 (36 million) of the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below, misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal principles.

The defendant involved Nos. 19, 20 per year (total of KRW 210,00,000) in the crime list No. 19, 20 per annum in the judgment of the court below, was accused Q, and did not deceiving the victims and did not have the intention of defraudation.

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

In full view of the following circumstances, the judgment of the court below and the court below as to the allegations related to No. 13 per annum 13 per annum in the judgment of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant received 36 million won from the victim B as stated in the crime sight table No. 13 per annum in the judgment of the court below.

Since it can be sufficiently recognized, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

On April 18, 2016, the victim B sent the amount of KRW 36 million to the defendant on July 1, 2013 by investigative agencies.

Since the statement to the effect that “ .......” (No. 565, 638, 639, 339, 641, 93, 731, 732, 96, 742, 1098, 1099), the victim B maintained its statement consistently (Evidence 1, 565, 638, 639, 631, 641, 93, 931, 732, 96, 109, 1099). The victim B’s statement to the effect that “ ...

A statement to the effect that “ .......... (3 evidence records 1098, 1099 pages), this is merely an additional statement made by the victim B on the grounds of payment of the said money, and does not reverse the aforementioned statement, and such statement is not consistent as the Defendant asserts.

shall not be assessed.

A victim B received from F on July 1, 2013 the remittance of KRW 42 million from F on the same day, and then transferred to DaH on the same day, and delivered to Daz in USD 36 million after exchange, and the remaining KRW 6 million on the one hand.