All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing); (b) the Defendant erred by misapprehending the facts.

The argument is asserted.

A) On April 26, 2007, the Defendant: (a) intended to collect copies from the printing office and the main office and deliver them to the recycling company including F (hereinafter “F”); and accordingly, (b) entered into a contract between F and F on April 26, 2007, under which the Defendant entered into a contract with H (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) who is the representative director, to deliver the copies to F; and (c) received KRW 10 million,000,000 from F after three days thereafter.

The above KRW 10 million is the money to be returned to the F, upon the expiration of the contract term, which is not the advance payment as described in this part of the facts charged, for which the contract deposit is paid, but the payment date is not the date of the contract as described in this part of the facts charged, but the three days thereafter.

B) With respect to the crime of re-election Nos. 1, 2014 (1) related to the 2014 senior group 1695 case, a person who paid the share subscription price from the victim I is the same birth V of the defendant, and the defendant did not participate in the above crime.

(2) With respect to the crime re-crimes Nos. 3, 5, and 6 in the judgment below, there is no fact that the Defendant altered the contract date, etc. of the trade contract between F and F.

It is because the request for detention warrant against the defendant is dismissed, and the prosecutor has received a disposition of non-prosecution by the prosecutor who has no authority to institute a prosecution against the fact that the defendant is subject to the alteration of private documents and the exercise of changed private documents has not changed the above sales contract.

On the other hand, the sales contract concluded with the recycling company mentioned above is merely a double contract.

In the end, there is no criminal intent to obtain fraud against the defendant.

(3) The second crime No. 4 of the crime sight table as indicated in the judgment of the court below is committed.