All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not have been in the Philippines with a view to escaping criminal punishment, but operated a restaurant at that place.

Since the fraudulent part against the victim F is subject to the statute of limitations, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

2) As to the guilty part of the fraud against G by mistake of fact, the Defendant never told G of the substance and progress of the projects of the Philippines from the beginning, and did not deceiving G.

There was no criminal intent to acquire investment money.

While the defendant was in the Philippines or after G became the representative director E, the defendant could not withdraw or use the investment money.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. As to the part not guilty of the fraud against G misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant was found guilty of the entire investment amounting to KRW 461.8 million, given that the Defendant belonged to G on the subject, progress, and profit to be distributed of the said casino business.

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

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine by misapprehending the legal doctrine, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s situation at the time of departure from the Republic of Korea, the situation where contact was interrupted after departure, and the Defendant’s attitude of endeavoring to repay his/her obligations in the Philippines.

The decision was determined.

Examining and closely examining the judgment of the court below by comparing it with the records, such judgment is sufficiently acceptable.

We do not accept the Defendant’s assertion of law.

B. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) G casino operation experience acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts; (b) the background in which he/she was introduced by the Defendant; and (c) the circumstances in which L was stationed in the Defendant’s office, the Defendant also states in detail.