A. Although the defendant was unable to comply with the agreement due to changes in contingent economic circumstances, even though he had the intent and ability to pay the principal and the agreed profits at the time of receiving each money from the victims, the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the fact.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, in light of the defendant's obligation burden and sales room operation situation, the defendant was in a situation in which the principal and profits could not be repaid within the agreed time limit even if he received an investment from the victims, and the defendant was required to receive an investment by promising a very high profit rate of return to investors including the victims, but most of it was required to use the money for the repayment of obligations such as the payment of profits to the existing investors, and thus, it was difficult for the court below to have continued payment of profits or principal repayment. Thus, the court below's finding the defendant's criminal intent to obtain money and found the defendant guilty of the facts of this case by mistake of facts, and it cannot be said that

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing did not have the same criminal record and determined the above sentence in consideration of the agreement with the victims. Considering the various sentencing conditions as indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the amount of damage, the method of crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the above sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.