A. Defendant 1) With respect to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (as to the fraud related to the purchase of shares as stated in Paragraph (1) of the crime in the original judgment), the Defendant did not deception the victim due to the false statement that the shares are listed or the value of shares increases by two to three times, thereby reducing more than twice the principal amount, and there is no intention to defraud the Defendant. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the judgment of the court below, thereby deceiving him of 6 million won and 5 million won, and the statement made by the witness V of the court below does not interfere with the above recognition due to lack of credibility or lack of probative value. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) Since the investigation agency to the court below, the victim consistently stated, “When the defendant was listed in good business feasibility of F and G Co., Ltd., the defendant would have made an investment change because it could reduce more than twice the principal amount.” In light of the defendant’s prospectus and its basis, the victim submitted a copy of the statement prepared by the victim. The victim’s statement is specific and consistent, and the situation is reasonable in light of the fact that the expected share price based on net profit per share is written in the above prospectus, and the detailed statement of the situation is written in detail, the victim’s statement is sufficiently persuasive. 2) The defendant prepared an agreement on the claim for purchase of shares with the victim (Evidence No. 252, No. 254 of the evidence record) with respect to the purchase and sale of shares, and the appraisal right as stipulated in the agreement.