A. The Defendant did not deceiving the victim company; however, the Defendant was merely subject to construction of sampling which is free of charge by the victim company after concluding a franchise agreement with the victim company, but the lower court convicted all of the charges of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence in light of the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficiently recognizable that the Defendant, even if he/she was performing a crowdfunding work from the victim company, did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost properly, he/she could deceiving the victim company and have executed the crowdfunding work twice. Thus, the lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the facts as alleged by the Defendant, and thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

The defendant was executed by the victim company on April 22, 2014 because he was at the end of free, and was executed by the victim company.

The argument to the effect that “” is, however, the Defendant’s above assertion is difficult to believe as it is, in light of the fact that the Defendant demanded the victim company to execute further crowdfunding, even though it was a situation in which payment was continued by the victim company because it did not pay the price of crowdfunding constructed around April 22, 2014.

B. If it was clearly stated that the Defendant would not pay the construction cost by trading executed around April 22, 2014 from the beginning, the victim company will have executed further trading efforts that the Defendant would require.