A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not deceiving the victims as if they were to repay money after completing the hotel immediately, not by borrowing money from the victims, but by receiving investments from the victims, and as they had the ability and intent to repay, there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court and the Defendant’s statement in the trial court prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with labor due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) at the Seoul High Court on April 24, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 24, 2015.

Therefore, due to the conclusion of the above judgment, each of the crimes of fraud in this case and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) are set forth in the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment for each of the crimes of fraud in this case shall be imposed in consideration of equity in the case where it is judged simultaneously pursuant to

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the judgment of the court below is a ground for ex officio reversal, but the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below can fully recognize the fact that the victims acquired money from the victims under the pretext of borrowing money as stated in the facts charged, although the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay. The judgment of the court below

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is accepted.