A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Of the money received from the victim E, 35 million won is to jointly operate the daily house in L and to receive investments from the acquisition fund, and it is not to receive investments by paying interest as stated in the facts charged. 2) As to the remaining money received from the victim E and the money received from the victim F, there is no fact that the victim promised to pay interest at the time of receiving the said money, and that real estate is offered as security.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is rejected, since it is judged that the Defendant deceivings the victims as stated in the facts charged.

1) The Defendant did not promised to provide the victims with real estate as security, and rather, the victims reported the advertisement and claimed to the effect that “to make an investment in cash without security,” while the victims expressed to the effect that they offered real estate as security from the investigative agency to the court of original trial. The victims were not aware of the Defendant at all, and the victims made a statement to the effect that they promised to offer real estate as security. The victims did not easily understand that they would invest money without security to the Defendant, who is a credit service provider, and it seems that the credibility of the victims’ statement is higher than the Defendant’s statement. 2) According to the written statement statement as to H in the prosecutor’s preparation, according to the prosecutor’s written statement as to H, the Defendant was to provide real estate as security to other investors.