The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud of the borrowed money against the victim D (Article 1 of the judgment of the court below as to the fraud of the borrowed money (Article 1 of the judgment of the court below), the defendant did not defraud the victim D by deceiving the victim D without any intention or ability to repay, but did not perform the money in failure to perform the business, so there was no intention

B. As to embezzlement (Article 2 of the judgment below), the defendant merely borrowed money from the victim D for the purchase cost of the project site, and not with money as the liquidation cost of crops and ordinary working cost.

(c)

With respect to attempted land exchange fraud with the victim D (Article 3-1(a) of the judgment of the court below), the defendant attempted to perform an exchange contract between the land located in Gangwon-do and the building located in Goyang-si, but the victim D et al. failed to perform the exchange contract due to their failure to cooperate, and not deceiving the victim D.

(d)

With respect to the fraud of the victim AP (Article 3-2(b) of the decision of the court below), the defendant only performed the exchange contract between the above land and the building, but not deceiving the victim AP.

E. As to the forgery of private documents and the display of a falsified investigation document (Article 4 of the judgment of the court below), the defendant was very closely related to AR.

The AP and D's request for the preparation of a trading contract was made and the AR's consent was naturally known at the time of the time. Therefore, there was no intention to forge the private document and to exercise the relevant investigation document.

2. Determination

A. On May 25, 2009, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the victim D’s loan fraud, i.e., ① the victim D is urgently released from provisional seizure established in relation to the land for which the Defendant was Gangwon-do General Leisure Co., Ltd. is unable to borrow money anywhere on holidays, and the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant on May 25, 2009. In addition, the Defendant sent KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s comprehensive leisure site.