A. In fact, the Defendant did not agree to guarantee the principal of investment to the victim or return it to the victim as double the principal, and since the person who actually attempted to operate the gas station business is E, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim with no criminal intent to acquire the money of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

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

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that the grounds for appeal are the same as the grounds for appeal even in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case that, even if the Defendant received money from the victim, he deceiving the victim without any intention or ability to return it, and received a total of KRW 27.9 million from the victim.

In light of the record, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was clearly erroneous in the judgment of the court below.

There is no reasonable circumstance to see that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair because it is against logical and empirical rules.

Furthermore, even if the defendant had different contents of the gas station business and E was led to the business and all the money received by the victim was used by E, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant means that he was well aware of the substance of the gas station business, and it is recognized that he actively solicited the victim to make an investment.

It is judged that the defendant has at least the intention of deceitation.