A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the victim, E, etc. to operate the Hosan Development Project and express their intent to invest KRW 500 million with the victim, E, etc., but the defendant failed to recover the claim amounting to KRW 5.3 billion which could not be anticipated, thereby failing to comply with the investment promise. The defendant did not directly demand the victim to pay the operating fund of KRW 100 million to the victim, and only spent KRW 100 million deposited according to E’s direction at the business expense. Thus, the defendant did not deceiving the victim to acquire money.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

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

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in detail in the column of “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel” by asserting the same purport. In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there were errors by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, as alleged by the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime is in the relation of the crime of fraud recorded in the criminal record as stated in the judgment of the lower court and the concurrent relation between the latter and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time, the principle of equity is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant has already committed the same offense.