Of the guilty parts of the judgment of the court below, the parts concerning the crimes of Articles 1, 4, 6, and 7 of the judgment and the crimes of Articles 2 and 3 of the judgment shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The written opinion submitted on September 6, 2016 by a defense counsel for mistake of facts regarding [2015 Highest 6099] (7) portion (7) was reflected to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal.

The Defendant deceiving the victim X Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim Co., Ltd.”) is not the Defendant, but the Defendant is also subject to deception from the Z.

The judgment of the first instance that recognized this part of fraud against the defendant was erroneous.

B. The imprisonment of two years and six months with respect to the crimes of Articles 1, 4, 6, and 7 in the judgment of the court of unfair sentencing (one year with respect to the crimes of Articles 1, 4, 6, and 2 and 3 in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In the first instance court’s determination of mistake of facts, the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by stating in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its determination on the “2.2015 Godan6099” among the “reason for the determination of a crime” of the judgment.

Examining the above judgments by comparing them with the records, the judgment of the first instance is just, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The part of the crime of Articles 2 and 3 of the Decision 1 on the argument of unfair sentencing has a history of having been punished more than three times for fraud, and each of these crimes was committed during the repeated crime period due to a escape vehicle, etc., and the Defendant’s total fraud amounting to KRW 468 million, and the amount of embezzlement amounting to KRW 25 million is very large, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant paid 67 million won to the victim F of this part to the first instance court, and the appellate court agreed with the victim F of this part, and the victim F of this agreement was fully repaid by the defendant.