A. The amount that the Defendant received from the victim of fact is merely that the Defendant was aided with the victim at the time when it was economically difficult for him to do so, or that the Defendant received part of the money aided to the victim as the Defendant’s economic situation was crypted, and that the Defendant did not receive the money in the name of the investment money by deceiving the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant argued to the effect that the lower court rendered a judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts was the same in the trial.

As to this, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, taking into account the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, which are revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined.

Examining the above judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the facts as alleged above by the defendant.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the instant arguments and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records, the lower court appears to have reasonably determined by fully considering the various reasons for sentencing alleged by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to the extent that the sentencing is modified ex post facto.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.