The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. In other words, the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to acquire money by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and legal principles.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the admissibility or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession at the investigative agency of the defendant at the court of first instance differs from the previous one at the court of first instance or the appellate court’s legal statement.

In determining the credibility of a confession, it is not possible to determine whether the contents of the confession themselves have objectively rationality, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the motive or reason of the confession, and what is the circumstance leading up to the confessions, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confessions among circumstances other than the confessions, and whether there is a situation where there is a reasonable doubt as to the grounds provided in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the motive or process of the confessions (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008). 2) In examining the record, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the confessions in the motive or circumstance of the confessions in the court of first instance, and there is no reason to suspect the motive or reason of the confessions in the court of first instance, and the contents of the confession are not contrary to or contradictory to the objective circumstances acknowledged by other evidence, and thus, credibility is deemed credibility.

B. Since there are sufficient evidence to prove that the confession of the defendant, the defendant could be fully recognized that he had received money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case.

① When the Defendant intends to take over D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) around March 2012, the victim made a preferential investment of KRW 100 million with the acquisition price equivalent to KRW 260 million, the victim shall register as the executive officer of D.