The judgment of the court below of first instance except the portion not guilty and the judgment of the court below 2 shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (the lower court’s judgment, misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing 1), or misunderstanding of legal principles, ① In relation to each fraud part in its holding, the G in charge of the settlement of accounts for a total of KRW 2.1 billion, KRW 3.4 billion, and KRW 8.6 billion, and KRW 8.4 billion, and KRW 4 billion, as of 2015, were capable of achieving sales and net profit.

On August 30, 2016, when the company defaulted, the outstanding amount receivable was approximately KRW 25.6 billion, and there are many companies that received the payment for the construction work until that time.

However, the fact that the victims (P, R, and E) could not pay the construction cost or borrowed money due to the default of the Promissory Notes and the current accounts issued by the Bank of Korea prior to the settlement of the outstanding amount of the construction cost.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

② With respect to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act in its holding, G. at the time of the issuance of each of the check in this case had the ability to pay the check price as stated in paragraph (1).

In particular, AA and a face value of KRW 390,000,000 per share check is issued to secure the defendant's obligation to pay for the amount of a bill when a promissory note with a face value of KRW 200,000,000 issued to AF AF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "AF") was settled in the first default.

In that sense, the Promissory Notes are treated as dishonored on the wind that AF puts a promise and does not settle the amount of KRW 200 million, and subsequent to the refusal to pay a check at the closing of the check. Therefore, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged without any intention to do so, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (not guilty of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be the G.