The guilty part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant (including the acquittal part of the reasons) shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts as follows (hereinafter “H”) committed a crime under the name of H (hereinafter “H”) with a discount of each bill of exchange, or with a grace period for payment of its obligation, and did not recognize that each bill of exchange or the price of the bill of exchange may not be repaid due to H’s default at the time when the bill of exchange was delivered in the name of H (hereinafter “H”) and even though the Defendant did not anticipate the possibility of the H’s default, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby committed a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and each crime of fraud was found guilty.

2) It is deemed that the defendant committed each crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and each crime of fraud.

Even if the court below's sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and finding the Defendant not guilty of each of the above frauds on the following grounds: (a) although each of the frauds committed from April 15, 2013 to June 2013 against the victim I, K, L, C, P, Q, and AA Co., Ltd (hereinafter “A”), and (b) on September 26, 2013 against the victim I, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court had already made the same assertion as that of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, was the possibility of the Defendant’s dishonor of H at the latest following July 2013.