A. In relation to the crime on February 5, 2018, with regard to the facts charged on February 5, 2018, the defendant stated that the victim B “it is necessary to receive money to attract investment,” and that the defendant merely received KRW 8 million from the victim as the fund for attracting investment and received the attraction of investment from the victim, and there was no statement that the victim “if the victim would pay the foreigner’s deposit at his/her home, he/she would lend KRW 8 million as he/she will pay the foreigner’s deposit at his/her home.” 2) In relation to the crime on March 2, 2018, the defendant received KRW 4 million from the victim B in order to collect the shortage of remittance due to the error in an overseas remittance related to H’s making soup investment. However, the defendant could only receive KRW 4 million from the victim to pay the money to the customer of the U.S. company, and if it is short of KRW 400,000,000,000.”

3) In relation to the crime on February 21, 2018, the Defendant made it necessary to receive KRW 400 million from the “A” from the victim H, and there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant would have received KRW 40 million from the victim’s victim’s H, and that the Defendant would have received KRW 40 million from the victim’s H. In order to make an investment in USD 400 million from the Defendant’s overseas account, there is no fact that the Defendant merely stated that the Defendant would have received KRW 30 million from the victim’s H in relation to the crime on March 2, 2018 and March 7, 2018.

5) In relation to each of the above crimes, the Defendant received each of the above money from the victims and remitted it to the “A” by means of an international fraud group, so there is no intent to obtain the Defendant by fraud. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination: