A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. On October 31, 201, there is no fact that the victims were met on or around October 31, 201, and the victim F is not by the Defendant’s solicitation, but by the Defendant’s investment of KRW 20 million in advance.

The proposal is the victim G and the defendant's investment of KRW 20 million by the F's solicitation, not the defendant's direct investment.

B. The Defendant acquired the above KRW 40 million by fraud, as he/she was sufficiently able to repay the total of KRW 40 million from the victims at the time of investment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) As to embezzlement, the Defendant’s remittance of KRW 1 million from the victim F on May 27, 201, KRW 170 million on June 20, 201, and KRW 1 million on June 24, 2011 to use the said money for personal purposes without immediately repaying the loan requested by the F. However, in light of the characteristics of the variable pension to which the F was enrolled at the time, a large amount of loss is anticipated and the time for repayment was delayed, and the Defendant was unable to repay the said loan by withdrawing from ING life, and it was inevitable to use the said money due to the lack of living expenses at the time, and thus, there was a criminal intent of embezzlement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) Ultimately, although the facts charged of the instant fraud and embezzlement against the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been established, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the part of the fraud, i.e., the victims, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, from the investigative agency to the trial of the party.