A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not know the existence of the victims in the early stage of the instant case, and did not know at all the specific matters, such as the names of the victims, the method of deception, the time of remittance, and the amount of fraud.

In the instant bail business, the relationship between the Defendant and the victims was a general investment relationship, and the relationship between D and the victims was difficult to be related to the loan relationship similar to the loan business. Therefore, the Defendant did not have committed any act of deceiving the victims, and the victims’ investment (dispositive act) did not have a relation to the Defendant’s act.

Since the defendant actually purchased a release on bail, it is not possible to prevent the return thereof.

Therefore, the defendant has no intention to commit fraud.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. First, we examine the criminal intent of deception and fraud by the Defendant.

According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts and circumstances are acknowledged. In full view of these circumstances, the defendant, through D, has already been liable for a large amount of investment funds to many people at the time of receiving a monetary amount from the victims as investment funds for the bail project, and the defendant was so-called the so-called "refluence from return". In fact, the defendant did not have the ability to pay the proceeds promised to the victims through the bail project and the principal within the time limit agreed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same effect is justified, since the defendant's deception and the crime of deception is recognized.

(i) The amount received by the Defendant from D as the purchase fund for bail exceeds a total of KRW 1.5 billion even from January 8, 2014 to July 7, 2014. The Defendant actually purchased bail during the said period.

There are almost no reliable materials to be considered.

Dor. The defendant