The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the testimony of R/X cited by the court below as a misunderstanding of facts constitutes a professional statement, and thus, it is not admissible as evidence, and only other evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was involved in the crime of fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant can be found to have committed the crime that the defendant acquired the victims' money as the total liability of the Heishing organization in charge of D and E, etc.

In light of the above, conviction was recognized.

① In light of the introduction of D around 2013, G, which is the constituent element of this case, the Defendant was only the Defendant around Seoul.

At that place, G changed the Defendant as “the head of the office,” and even the Defendant was treated as the Defendant’s upper line, such as D, the head of the Bossing team.

② The Defendant left the Republic of Korea from November 2013 to October 2014 on six occasions.

The Defendant, while staying in the Philippines, stayed in E, R, and S, stayed in the accommodation where the staff of the Republic of Korea were silentd, and provided meals with the staff of the Republic of Korea.

③ In particular, R was an employee of the Republic of Korea, who was engaged in the activities of the Republic of Korea in the Philippines, while serving as a staff member of the Republic of Korea, he/she provided meals with Defendant, E, and AS. At the time, E and AS, the head of the team of the Bohishing, entered the Defendant as “mar.” After eating R, he/she told R to the effect that “I will be forgotten for the Defendant’s face name, who is not aware of, and will not be seen as, a person.”

(4) AS shall account for AS’s wife from April 1, 2014 to August 7, 2014.