All judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 of No. 2018, No. 124, 5, 6, 7, and 5.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim G was used by the Defendant around June 9, 2014 and around June 10, 2014 by misunderstanding the part concerning the defraudation of KRW 200,000,00 among the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim G with the first victim resolution of the judgment.

Payment of KRW 200,00,000 in total to H’s account is only a transaction that is used by L and G, but is unrelated to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant did not acquire the above money from the victim G.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant acquired the above money from the victim G.

In this case, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

B. The Defendant, as to the part of fraud part against the victim J of the first instance judgment, received KRW 200,000,000 under the name of advance payment, regardless of its type, from the victim J, the Defendant provided unused goods equivalent to KRW 1,00,00 from around September 201 to December 2014, the Defendant provided the victim J of the first instance judgment with high-end wire such as waste iron [of the materials used for power distribution facilities, power transmission transformation facilities, etc., the high price of the unused goods, such as scrap iron (of the materials used for the high-end scrap metal, alinium, etc., the high price of the scrap metal, etc., compared to the high-end scrap metal), waste electric meters, and waste closed machines, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “unused goods”). From around 100,000,000, to around 187,000,000 won in total from the Ministry of National Defense or the regular accounts of the south, and paid the interest amount equivalent to KRW 300,00.

Therefore, the defendant did not acquire the above 200,000 won from the victim J.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant acquired the above money from the victim J.

In this case, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.

(c)

The Defendant received KRW 194,50,000, under the pretext of advance payment of non-processed goods, from the victim C, as to the part concerning fraud against the victim C of the original judgment. From April 2015 to June 2015, the Defendant provided the corresponding disused goods.