The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the judgment of the court below on the first instance, Defendant 1 only notified the possibility of receiving a restaurant to CZ other than DD, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim D, since the Defendant merely informed the CZ of the possibility of receiving the restaurant.

In addition, even though he was ordered to receive a restaurant in the oral manner at the time, it was impossible to hold a restaurant as a cafeteria because of the occurrence of a failure in the process of the business due to the circumstances that were subsequently avoided, so the defendant does not have any fact of deception and there is no intention to commit fraud.

B) A crime of violation of Article 1 of the judgment of the court below in the second instance [the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] is not 870 million won but 100 million won in the amount that the defendant received from the victim M.

In addition, the Defendant actually carried out business activities for the purpose of obtaining the right to operate the restaurant for a long time, as each of the construction sites of O 12 construction sites and the construction sites of PELD gas storage tanks, and also prepared a large amount of development funds and joint operation agreement on the restaurant to SF and T agricultural partnership.

The defendant believed that each of the above farming associations was actually entrusted with the right to operate a restaurant, and that it was ordered to do so and did not intend to actually transfer it to the victim M. As a result, the defendant did not engage in deception, and there is no intention to commit fraud.

C) Part 2 (Offense of Fraud) of the judgment of the court below in the second instance is that the Defendant actually traded with respect to a restaurant is N, and M is merely that the other party believed N’s horse and provided N with funds. In this end, N will invest KRW 2 billion in the Defendant for the right to operate the restaurant.

At the time of promise, the defendant expressed in advance that some of them will be paid to N as part of the part of the defendant's wife-type commercial building, so the KRW 200 million requested by the defendant has already been used for the personal purpose between the defendant and N.