(a) misunderstanding of facts - 1) fraud against victimO - 200 million won received from theO, but this is not a loan but a normal stock sale price.

2) The Defendant used all the above money for M&A.

However, unlike expected, it is only that it is not possible to pay dividends agreed to theO because the operation of the restaurant is not infused.

3) Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving theO and did not have the intent to defraud the Defendant.

4) Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to fraud or by misapprehending the legal principles as to fraud.

B. Even if all of the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below's judgment which convicted theO of fraud is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

1) The core content of the agreement between the Defendant and theO, regardless of whether the Defendant received KRW 200 million from theO is a share sale price, an investment bond, or a borrowed loan, is as follows.

(1) The defendant shall distribute to theO the profits of M in accordance with the share ratio (20%).

Where a monthly dividend does not exceed five million won, the monthly dividend shall be five million won.

(2) The defendant shall pay 300 million won to theO for a two-year period and shall repurchase shares again.

2) Ultimately, the Defendant paid not less than KRW 500,000 per month to theO in return for KRW 200,000,000, and thereafter, used shares as a intermediary by returning KRW 300,000 after two years.

However, the defendant is KRW 200 million from O.