A. Defendant (1) did not induce the victim to make an investment in the projects relating to the Philippines by mistake of facts (Fraud).

(2) The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant used the instant money in violation of the purpose of the victim’s entrustment, as long as the Defendant used the instant money. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts (Fraud) and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, and the following circumstances acknowledged as follows. ① The victim made a statement from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below that the defendant would be able to obtain a high profit if the defendant invests in the projects related to the Philippines, and the victim seems to have no reason to make a false statement about the place of investment, ② the victim notified the victim that he will use the money to purchase the J's shares and received the above money from the victim. However, the victim stated that he did not have any talk about the above shares in the course of the investment of this case. ③ The victim stated that he did not have any opinion about the above shares, ③ all of the defendant was a document prepared by the defendant, or a document prepared by the defendant was submitted to the investigative agency and the court. The remaining financial materials alone are transferred from the victim around January 14, 2008 to the victim around 10:205, 2005.