The judgment below

Section 2 at the time of original adjudication in the guilty part of the defendant case

(a) The remainder except for one crime;

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The sale price paid by the victims of misconception of facts (the fraud of S, U, and T among the cases of 2013 high-priced 206) was deposited into the account in the name of V or C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “W”), and there was no fact that the defendant obtained W's shares or obtained any profit in return for the victims paid the sale price in V or W, and the court below found the victims guilty of this part of the charges, even though there was no fact that the defendant acquired the sale price by deceiving the victims.

[2] Decision of the court below on the sentencing of unfair sentencing

(a) 1) Crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months and for the remaining crimes: imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months) are too unreasonable;

In full view of the fact-finding of facts by the prosecutor (not guilty part) and the victim G from the victim after July 201, 201, the fact that the victim and Q gave and receives money as the business fund for the Ltel business of the defendant, A Q took over the talks from the defendant, and borrowed money from the victim. The defendant directly provided the victim with talks about Ltel and talks about Ltel and offered the contract as security, and A Q delivered KRW 400 million out of the money received from the victim to the defendant, it can be recognized that the above money was obtained by deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim through A Q, which is in friendship with the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges in error of mistake.

The sentencing of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is unfair because it is too uneasible.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s determination of the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (the fraud of S, U, and T among the 2013 Gohap206 cases) shall sell AS reconstruction apartment units: