A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, as an incorporated association, received money from the injured party to the G (hereinafter “the instant business entity”) under the name of the Defendant’s investment in the G (hereinafter “the instant business entity”), which the Defendant is an incorporated association of F, and actually used it for the management of the instant business entity, and there was the intent of deceiving or deceiving the injured party.

However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of one-year imprisonment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court may fully recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent of deception and deception.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) At the time of receiving an investment from the injured party, the instant entity was delinquent in paying approximately KRW 40 million of value-added tax, and the previous camp that had been conducted had reached KRW 120,000,000 of the refunded debt, and there was no minimum expenses incurred in operating the office.

In addition, since the investment funds received from the damaged party were used as most of the refund liabilities of the company of this case and the operating expenses of the office, the company of this case had been engaged in profit-making activities by holding various events even after the company of this case was invested by the damaged party, as claimed by the defendant.

Even if the victim was promised, it was difficult to expect that the sum of KRW 100 million of investment and KRW 30 million of investment earnings will be returned after one year as if they were promised to the victim.

(ii)..