The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crimes of No. 1 and No. 3 in the judgment of the defendant are two years of imprisonment, and the crimes of No. 2 in the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The victim F is guilty of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim F (Crimes No. 1 and 2016 Gohap630), and the fraud against the victim N (Crimes No. 3 and 2017 Gohap389 Gohap389). The defendant's fraud against the victim F of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim F of the attached Table 1, 2, and 5 of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter "the acquisition price of the instant case") and the victim N, among the facts of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud No. 3 and 2017 Gohap 3899 as stated in the judgment below).

The victims were well aware of the fact that R acquired the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site and transferred it to the victims.

In this regard, since R did not transfer the right to operate a restaurant at the construction site to the defendant, the defendant could not transfer it to the victims.

It can not be seen, and the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

B) From among the violations of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim F, the Defendant was granted the victim the money under the name of borrowing from the victim F, and the Defendant did not receive the money by deceiving the victim under the name of the victim to have the right to operate the restaurant at the construction site. Thus, the Defendant was deceiving the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) Fraud against the victim I (2017 Gohap 114), the Defendant merely received money from the victim as a loan, and did not receive money from the victim under the pretext of deceiving the victim to have the right to operate the restaurant at L construction site.