A. The victims of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have been moving into D's office and invested money in D and F's office with explanation of the project.

Therefore, the defendant deceivings the victim.

It shall not be deemed that there is an intention to obtain fraud from the accused or the accused.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's confession in the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles can not be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confession only on the grounds that the confession in the court of first instance differs from the statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of the confession, the credibility of the confession shall be determined in consideration of the following: (a) the contents of the confession's statement are objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason for the confession; and (d) the reasons leading up to the confession, and (e)

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below’s determination that the Defendant made a confession pursuant to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the Defendant’s assertion at the trial court that recognized all the facts charged of the instant case, is difficult to have a reasonable doubt as to the motive or process of making the confession. Furthermore, the Defendant made a confession with the assistance of counsel in the court below, without any explanation as to the circumstances leading up to the confession, and the Defendant could not easily dismiss the confession, and ② the victims were the same as the facts charged of the instant case.