A. The Defendant, through a financial broker, deposited the capital into the Sck account, issued a guarantee of the amount of 10 times, and was actually possible to receive a loan. Accordingly, the Defendant received the said money from the victim D for the said purpose, and even in investing the said money, the Defendant followed the victim.

However, the defendant is unable to return money to the victim because it is impossible to recover the investment money due to the fraudulent conduct by a financial institution chosen as an investment source, and there was no deception of the victim in this process and there was no intention of fraud.

In addition, the victim only paid 150 million won to the defendant as investment money, and the remaining about 34 million won to the defendant is used as security money.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that convicted Defendant of fraud is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the reasons for appeal in this part, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges on the ground that: (a) the Defendant was aware of the fact of the Defendant’s deception and the criminal intent of deception in light of the following: (b) the Defendant was recognized, based on the fact that: (a) the Defendant was an international financial specialist and was engaged in the financing business since 2008; (c) there was no successful case; (b) the Defendant did not notify at all the possibility of principal loss to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant invested in the general account with possibility of loss, other than USD 60,00,00, out of the money received from the victim, in the case where the Defendant did not attract foreign currency for the victim; and (c) the Defendant did not return all the money received from the victim; and (b) the lower court was guilty of