The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The judgment below

Acquittal.

A. (1) Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts does not have a deceptive act against the victim C, and there is no intention to acquire it by deception.

(1) The project of this case is a method that the victim and the defendant bear the expenses in the course of running the project in Russia, while paying the expenses in advance by the defendant, and the victim pays the expenses in the last time after settling the case with the victim and then remitting the part of the defendant's burden to the defendant. Thus, even if the defendant used the money remitted from the victim for personal purpose, the part that the victim is obligated to pay in advance by the defendant was properly used by the defendant. (2) The defendant and the victim used the money in relation to Russia project as well as the project of the Philippines. (2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) rendered a judgment of acquittal by misapprehending the legal principles that the singleness and continuity of the criminal intent among the facts charged in the instant case are recognized and the method of crime is not the same, so each crime is not an inclusive crime, but an actual concurrent crime, and therefore, Paragraph (1) of the facts charged constitutes a case where the statute of limitations has expired at the time of prosecution. (1) The facts charged in the instant case is committed in the process of deceiving the victim that the defendant knows well that the defendant is aware of the project strike in a foreign country while putting the victim into force, thereby inducing the victim to believe it and jointly conduct overseas business, and (2) the victim is a criminal committed in the course of making the victim believe it and jointly conduct overseas business, and (3) the victim is under the name of investment when he was taken over most of the defendant with respect to investment in China (Article 25 million won) and did not settle it (Article 1).