Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not deceiving the Defendant at the time of borrowing money from C or D, and since the borrowed money was converted into, or repaid with the invested money, the Defendant did not acquire it by fraud.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, the Defendant acquired money from C and D in the name of the investment fund.

(2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Review of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court reveals the following facts.

(1) The Defendant mainly engaged in advertising agency business using a standing signboard. From around 2007, losses were accumulated and the amount of money was insufficient. From around 2008, the amount of delinquent local taxes in arrears amounted to 69,616,430 won, and the Defendant did not own any property in his name.

(2) The Defendant borrowed money from E, etc. and promoted the business of installing electronic displays on the rooftop of the building located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M. On October 201, 201, the Defendant paid approximately KRW 80 million the amount of debt to E. (3) The Defendant is able to pay more profits if he/she installs electronic displays to C and D introduced by E.

After all, C borrowed KRW 50 million from December 16, 201 in return for the promise to pay interest at 3% per month, and D borrowed KRW 70 million in total from December 28, 201 to April 30, 201 in return for promising D to pay interest at 3% or 10% per month.

(4) On April 2012, the Defendant, who did not return the borrowed money to C and D, proposed that the electric sign board business be defective by converting the borrowed money into the investment amount. On May 25, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with C and D to carry on the business of operating the electric sign board with each of the 1/3 equity shares, together with C and D.