A. The Defendant did not deceiving the victim in collusion with C or D, and did not defraud the money.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant, in collusion with C and D, acquired KRW 158 million from the victim is recognized as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

(1) The defendant was designated as the priority beneficiary under the real estate security trust agreement concluded with the real estate trust company by the victim.

In addition, the defendant was designated as a person entrusted with the operation of funds in a letter of undertaking prepared by C.

② After committing the instant crime, the Defendant received KRW 22 million from C.

③ For the purpose of C and D, the Defendant has prepared the corresponding investment contract, agreement, etc. in return for the receipt of money from not only the victims but also many persons.

B. In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant’s content of the instant crime; (c) the criminal act; (d) the number of crimes; (c) the degree of the Defendant’s participation and profit; (d) the circumstances after the commission of the crime; and (e) the Defendant’s failure to recover damage; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and criminal records, the sentencing of the first instance court against

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit.