The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(1) The fact that the instant contract for the supply of scrap metal between P and P Co., Ltd. and victim P Co., Ltd. was not implemented is that the S operator of S Co., Ltd, who agreed to supply scrap metal to P, did not supply scrap metal properly by entering into multiple contracts.

(2) Since the Defendant paid the victim a total of at least KRW 18.7 million with the drinking value, it cannot be said that he/she had an intent to acquire each drinking value of the instant case.

(3) The Defendant’s fraud part against the victim AE cannot be said to have attempted to acquire the above price by fraud, since the Defendant did not pay the victim AE the price on the wind of unfairly provisionally seizing the Defendant’s claim against the Hyundai Heavy Industries.

(4) The Defendant was merely borrowed KRW 100 million from the Victim AG, and there was no fact of deceiving the said Victim.

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant's imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) of the judgment of the court below (the defendant and the prosecutor) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”) operated by the defendant was supplied with scrap metal from S, etc. on July 26, 2012 between P and S, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S, etc.”) and the world of S and Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S, etc.”) and entered into a contract with P to pay KRW 300 million as security deposit whenever the scrap metal is supplied separately from the security deposit, and thereafter, the security deposit on July 31, 2012.