Of the convictions and innocences of the judgment of the court below, the frauds related to the facility management service right of the corporation C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to C’s fraud related to the right to operate community facilities against C, and the Defendant’s right to attract funds granted from D in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), not limited to the amount set forth in the respective gold-type sheet, but to the extent of 26.4 billion won or 6.4 billion won, the Defendant’s right to attract funds extends to the entire interest rights related to H Co., Ltd. H (hereinafter “H”, and other companies also indicate only the name of the corporation and omit the indication of the corporation).

Nevertheless, the defendant was only authorized by D to raise necessary funds within the amount stated in each of the pre-use forms of money, and the act of receiving the deposit without authority or in excess of authority constitutes a deception of a crime of fraud and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) With respect to the forgery of each private document, the event of the above-mentioned document, and the use of forged or falsified securities, the Defendant prepared an in-house restaurant facility maintenance and operation agreement, cash storage increase and promissory note with respect to the attracting of funds comprehensively delegated by D, and the above private documents and valuables were prepared with the explicit or implied consent and consent of D.

Nevertheless, the Defendant each forged or falsified a contract for the maintenance and operation of the intra-company restaurant facilities, cash storage, and promissory note.

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

2) The fact that the illegal defendant in sentencing is against C’s injury, and most of the money received from C, are delivered to D or kept in custody.