The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance concerning fraud shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of fraud against the victim T in the judgment of the first instance court, from around 2005 to 2006, the Defendant was in a relationship with the victim T (name A Q after the opening name) who was an elementary school from around 2005 to 2006. However, since the Defendant’s wife, who suffered difficulties in the management of the company, it was merely a donation of money as stated in the facts charged to the Defendant or a match without fixing the due date for payment, and even though the Defendant did not deceive the above victim and did not intend to commit a crime by deception, the first instance court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) As to the crime of fraud against the victim W in the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant had engaged in ordinary monetary transactions.

Since F's refusal to make a proposal for purchase of land could not be denied, it was recommended to make an investment to the victim W, and it was completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of AA, which is an employee of the defendant for convenience, after collecting investment funds from the above victim, and then purchasing the land to be redeveloped, so the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the defendant did not have a criminal intent to obtain fraud. Therefore, the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

3) As to the crime of fraud against the victim's Z in the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant knew that it is difficult for the Defendant to take money from the victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's operation at the time of borrowing money from the victim's victim's victim's victim's Z, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the Defendant did not deceiving the above victim and did not intend to commit the crime of deception. The lower court

4) As to the crime of fraud against the victim I in the judgment of the second instance, the Defendant deceptioned the victim I to “to allow the victim I to receive removal works on a loan of KRW 30 million.”