An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

A. The Defendant: (a) was managing a so-called gold fund in which the Defendant was aware of the fact, who sold the gold money; (b) the victim H received the said gold fund from G to lend money to the Defendant for investment purposes; and (c) the Defendant paid the principal and profits to G; (d) the Defendant, by deceiving the victim H, obtained such investment money or loans by deceiving the victim H.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the victim H guilty of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 25, 2015, the summary of the facts charged regarding the fraud against the victim H was made by the Defendant on October 25, 2015, and the Defendant called the victim H and telephone call that he/she became aware of in the course of introducing G at the time of the strike on October 25, 2015. The facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant borrowed money from another person at the time and did not have any intent or ability to make a change within the agreed period even if he/she borrowed money from the victim, even though he/she did not have any intent or ability to make a change in the money within the agreed period; (b) the Defendant made a false statement that “I would make a repayment within ten (10) days if he/she borrowed money from the victim; and (c) would immediately make a reimbursement if it is urgently needed, he/she would make a reimbursement in advance only before this frame; and (d) received the money from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative under the name of the Defendant 2, 2000,000 won in total.

B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

C) (1) The confessions made by the Defendant in the court of first instance in the relevant legal doctrine are different from the legal statement in the appellate court, solely on the grounds that the confessions made by the Defendant in the court of first instance are different.