The remainder of the judgment of the court below except for the compensation order shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

(e).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the part of the crime of fraud against the victim AZ (crime 6 of the judgment of the court below), the Defendant attempted to pay the victim the money excluding the installment and taxes to be unpaid from the sale price of a passenger car, by receiving the money from the South Saemaul Bank, which was the person with a low interest in the purchase price of the passenger car, and the Defendant received a positive answer from the Jinnam Saemaul Bank, and conducted the automobile sale procedure after receiving a positive answer.

In this way, the unpaid security deposits for other vehicles in addition to the relevant vehicle shall also be deducted from South Korea.

Since the balance is not paid, there was no intention to deceive the victim or to acquire the pecuniary profit.

B) The Defendant did not forge and use a lease agreement in the name of BD with respect to the crime of forging private documents and the crime of gambling the above investigation document (crime 7 of the judgment below).

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of mistake in fraud against the victim AZ

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

6. From August 2012, the Defendant had been working as a business director of Erenck D from August 2012, the Defendant acquired the said company from T around September 30, 2014, and is currently serving as a representative director.

At the time of September 12, 2012, the Defendant: (a) concluded a trust agreement with T, the representative director of the Eenecar, and was aware of the fact that the Defendant purchased and held BY rocketing car in the name of Eenecar and paid all the amount equivalent to the purchase price of the said car to Eene car; (b) however, the Defendant was willing to sell the said car and pay part of the said loan with the payment for the said loan, because it is difficult for the Defendant to repay the debt incurred from the Eene car using the vehicle in its name as security, including the said car.

On November 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant was a telephone call to the victim from the supper branch; and (b) the Defendant was a Saemaul Bank of Korea.