The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The victim C, who is a corporate bondholder of fraud against the victim C, was aware of the circumstances of the defendant, lent the money as security to the defendant in order to receive high rate interest. Thus, the defendant did not deceiving the victim. In addition, the defendant did not receive from the victim C the amount of KRW 50 million as stated in the crime inundation (1) No. 19 of the judgment of the court below, and the amount repaid by the defendant to the victim C should be deducted from the amount of fraud. 2) As to the fraud against the victim F, the defendant, as stated in No. 1 of the crime inundation (2) of the judgment of the court below, was requested from the victim F to dispose of the victim F, and deliver the BM passenger car, the defendant agreed to receive KRW 30 million,000,000,000,0000,0000,000 won, which was first paid by the defendant when he delivers the above WM car.

In addition, as the defendant delivered merchandise coupons to the victim F according to the promise, he did not acquire this part of the money.

3) The Defendant’s fraud against the victim I is merely a failure to return the vehicle after leasing the vehicle from the victim I. As such, the amount of damage is merely an amount equivalent to the rent. (B) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a period of imprisonment of up to five years) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) The fraud against the victim C is found as follows: (a) whether the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million in cash from the victim C around February 2013, 201; and (b) based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant has been also an investigative agency.