A. In light of the following facts, Defendant 1’s assertion that he was a misunderstanding of the facts charged: (i) the witness D and F’s statement in the lower court is not reliable; (ii) the Defendant did not make a false statement to the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case; (iii) the Defendant promised the victim to deliver 20,000 won profit per room out of the profits generated in operating the instant age club; (iv) the Defendant was forced to receive 300,000 won from the victim in return for investment; (v) the Defendant was unable to pay profits, etc. inevitably due to the enemy’s operation of the instant age club; and (v) there was no criminal intent to acquire investments from the victim, the instant facts charged in the instant case cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt; and therefore, the lower court’s assertion that there was an error of mistake of facts. (ii) The lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is unjust.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is deemed too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this case at the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake. The lower court, under the title of judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion, stated in detail the Defendant’s assertion and judgment on this issue. In so doing, the lower court did not interfere with the recognition of the intent of fraud unless the Defendant agreed to return the principal to the victim without the ability to return the principal, and (3) the Defendant is unable to pay the agreed proceeds or principal to the victim on a timely basis, as the instant age club business did not run properly.