A. Of the aforesaid money by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, KRW 183.9 million, the Defendant was deposited directly with the account of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), not with the Defendant’s account, and the Defendant merely informed the Defendant of the F’s account with regard to the said money, and did not deceiving the victim.

The Defendant does not have any relationship with the F’s account, such as being unable to remit or withdraw money using the F’s account.

(3) The Defendant’s defense counsel at the first trial date of the trial for the trial of the first instance alleged misconception of facts as to the part of KRW 24 million which the Defendant had not accused the victim. However, the above assertion cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal due to the lack of allegations in the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal. Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, namely, the Defendant’s assertion that the said KRW 24 million had been transferred to the victim’s account, and the gift investment company failed to submit all of its account, the details of the transfer to the victim’s account, whether the futures investment company exists, the existence of the gift investment company’s claim, and the grounds for the transaction of the Defendant’s assertion, shall be fully recognized).

The Defendant’s defense counsel on the date of the first instance trial of unfair sentencing also asserted as grounds for appeal. However, according to the records of this case, the above assertion cannot serve as legitimate grounds for appeal as a new argument that was filed after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining this, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed significantly unfair in light of the overall circumstances revealed in the records of the instant case.

2. The judgment of the court below also has the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case.