The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are aware that when receiving money from the victim C (name D) and J, the Defendant was aware that he had the authority to execute H development project proposal, and that the part of giving a subcontract to the victim C and the victim J was different, and thus, it is not a double contract. Since the amount received from the victim N is a mere borrowed money and is not a return for soil and sand transport subcontract, there is no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court clearly erred in the determination of the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, or that maintaining the first instance court’s decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is remarkably unfair in full view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional evidence examination by the time of closing argument at the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the

(see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). We examine in accordance with the above legal doctrine.

Although the Defendant had the same assertion in the lower court, the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion on the grounds that the victims’ investigative agencies and legal statements were reliable.

There is no particular circumstance to reject the credibility of the above statements, and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.