The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

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

except that this judgment.

A. The Defendant did not defraud the money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. At around June 2009, there is no doubt about the probative value or credibility of a confession in the investigative agency of the defendant or in the court of first instance solely on the grounds that the confession in the investigative agency of the defendant or in the court of first instance differs from the testimony in the appellate court or in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, in consideration of the following: (a) the contents of the confession’s statement per se are objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason of the confession; and (d) the circumstances leading up to the confession, other than the confession, are not contrary to or contradictory to the confession; and (e) whether there is a situation where there is a reasonable doubt about the motive or process of the confession as stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1994, Jun. 26, 2008).

Furthermore, since the confession of the defendant is sufficiently reinforced evidence, the defendant could be fully recognized to have received money by deceiving the victim, such as this part of the facts charged.

① On June 1, 2009, the victim listened to the statement that it would receive 3% profits a year from the Defendant when investing in the Korean currency investment finance from the Defendant through the Defendant and sent the Defendant the amount of KRW 10 million on June 11, 2009 and KRW 10 million on June 26, 2009.