A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although the Defendant invested in E’s daily business as agreed to receive money from the damaged party, the Defendant merely failed to pay the principal and interest agreed to the victim because E did not pay the investment and profit, and did not receive money from the damaged party with the intent to obtain money.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby recognizing the criminal intent of deception and deception of the Defendant.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of 6 months sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court may fully recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent of deception and deception.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

1) 피고인이 E에게 투자하였다는 일수사업은 동대문에서 ‘ 땡 처리’ 물건을 처리하는 도매상들에게 돈을 투자하고 받은 수익금으로 높은 이율의 이자를 보장하는 사업으로서 피고인으로서는 위 사업내용에 비추어 투자 위험이 큰 사업 임을 충분히 알 수 있었을 것으로 보인다.

In particular, the Defendant was aware of E with the introduction from the branch and did not have any relationship with the formation of trust relationship, and there was no doubt as to whether E actually carries on the aforementioned business, whether it is possible to recover the amount of investment and pay interest.

2) Nevertheless, the Defendant borrowed money as if it were invested in a business in which the principal is returned to the victim. In light of the victim’s age and knowledge level, the victim believed the victim’s horses.