All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant (the mistake or misapprehension of legal principle) filed an appellate brief after the expiration of the period for filing the appellate brief, and the defendant did not fall under the legitimate grounds for appeal, but did not appear to have a legitimate grounds for appeal, and examined it in paragraph (2).

[Along on December 27, 2014, at the time of entering into a contract with the victim R, the Defendant was duly authorized to transfer the land of ten parcels of land (hereinafter “instant land”) of Gyeonggi-si, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, K, L, and M through an exchange contract with N. (hereinafter “instant land”). Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have induced the victim R.

[The use of a private document forgery and the use of a private document for the use of a private document] is a disposal authority for the claim for the return of the lease deposit of a cafeteria, and the defendant has lawfully drawn up the power of attorney in X according to the explicit and implied delegation of the secured party AV, X.

[Scafeteria-related frauds] The victim R knew that the defendant provided a cafeteria as security before he re-acquisitions a cafeteria, and it is difficult to view that the defendant deceivings the victim.

In addition, the victim R paid a lower amount than the agreed purchase price and operated a cafeteria again, and it is difficult for the victim to have suffered damages.

[2] The Defendant cannot be deemed as deceiving the Victim AI, as in the above, with regard to frauds related to the real estate exchange contract as to the part of the purchase price of KRW 25 million.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the defendant deceivings the above victim because the defendant has made a provisional registration under the victim's AI as a security for the above borrowed money, while it is related to defraudation of 40 million won in the name of the cost of civil engineering works.

[2] The Defendant was issued 20 million won from the Victim AK, and the Defendant was outside of Gyeonggi-gu AL.