The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the portion of rejection of an application for a compensation order and an order for compensation, and 2.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the Defendant’s defense counsel submitted to the lower court on September 12, 2017 a summary of his oral argument to the Defendant on September 12, 2017, and refund the victim LL of the 149 case to the Defendant on December 15, 2015. On May 25, 2016, the Defendant purchased Jeju-do airline tickets at KRW 111,000,000, which is the sum of the two amounts, from the amount of damage caused by fraud, and thus, the Defendant’s defense counsel claimed that the amount should be deducted from the amount of damage caused by fraud, since the Defendant refunded KRW 80,000 to the victim B-gu B-Gu 248 case.

The above assertion cannot serve as a legitimate ground for appeal as a assertion after the lapse of the period for appeal, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, a crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person and thereby acquiring property or pecuniary gain according to the defective intent arising therefrom. The essence of the above argument is to acquire property or pecuniary gain by deception, and it does not require that the other party actually suffers property loss (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do490, Nov. 26, 1985, etc.). Thus, even if the defendant paid part of the amount acquired by deception to the above victims after the fact, it is not required that the defendant refunded part of the amount acquired by deception.

Even if it is irrelevant to the establishment of a crime of fraud (it is also insufficient to recognize that the defendant purchased the leading air ticket on May 25, 2016 to the partner of the victim LL). Therefore, the defendant's defense counsel cannot be accepted.

Each sentence sentenced to the defendant (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for five years, and the second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for three months) is too unreasonable.

2. Of the facts charged by the lower court No. 2016 and 265, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of the crime. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the fraud against the victim HJ during the period Nos. 71 attached to the judgment of the lower court.