The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. Since the facts charged as to the fraud in relation to the fraud fall under the substantive competition relationship between several types of fraud independently for each victim, the defendant committed a fraudulent act specifically by the victim, and the defendant should be proved individually as to whether there exists a causal relationship between the fraud, mistake, and the disposal of property, and whether there exists the intent of the fraud.

However, according to the documents submitted by the defendant, in order to reduce the victims' advertising expenses and increase their advertising effects, the defendant entered into a fixed-amount advertising agency contract as stated in the judgment of the court below, and sold various kinds of advertising products, and faithfully performed the contract, such as paying advertising expenses from the victims to the portal site.

In particular, some victims have entered into several contracts with the company operated by the defendant in satisfaction with the defendant's advertising goods, and it cannot be said that the substitute contract was deceiving the victims, aside from the fact that there was a violation of the contract between the portal site and the agency.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the defendant had no intention or ability to provide the cost of making an advertisement or manufacturing the website, or subsidizing the costs without relation to the following character even if the defendant received advertising products from the victims. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts about the criminal intent of deception and fraud and misunderstanding the relevant legal principles.

B. As to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), employees of E (hereinafter “E”) are individual entrepreneurs, even if their employees are called “NV” and “NT”, the Defendant assumes that they were employees.