The remainder, excluding the part of the compensation order, shall be reversed.

One year of imprisonment with prison labor for the accused.

A. The Defendant, by mistake of fact, has detailed explanation about investment to the victim, and only used the investment money as explained to the victim and did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is acceptable, on the ground that, even if the Defendant received the investment from the injured party, he/she did not have the intent or ability to operate E and distribute the profits therefrom, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

(1) The Defendant recognized that most of the investments worth KRW 316 million received from the injured party was invested in F, G, etc., not by operational funds E, but by the fact that it invested in F, G, etc., but the name itself, which received the said investment from the injured party, invested in the said F

argument is asserted.

(2) However, the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, intends to establish and operate E for the production and sale of products using the GMS method held by the defendant to the victim and distribute profits therefrom to the victim.

In addition, 30 million won has been paid over 11 times under the pretext of investment in E.

Specific and consistent statements are made.

③ The Defendant, at the investigative agency, also recognized the fact that he received KRW 316 million from the injured person under the above title, but stated that all of the said money was used for the establishment and operating expenses of E, and that he did not know the specific details of the use of the said investment money because he was in charge of I at the time.

In addition, even if the defendant sent the above investment fund to the victim who tried to use it around 2014, the above investment fund is all E.