A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. Of the first judgment of the lower court, the Defendant did not deception the victim W, as stated in the judgment of the lower court (the victim was well aware of the business situation at the time) and did not normally proceed with the business due to the failure to pay the investment money promised by the victim when it was made.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) The second judgment of the court below (A) that held that the Defendant did not deception the victim I and did not have any intent to commit fraud.

The problem was that H using most of the remaining promissory notes discount did not comply with the settlement commitment.

Since B and H agree to pay a promissory note to the victim I, the defendant is not liable for this.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

(B) Notwithstanding the fact that the crime of embezzlement cannot be established on the grounds of various circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for ten months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) of the first judgment of the court below, the defendant's deception and the criminal intent of the defendant's defraudation can be sufficiently recognized with regard to the conditions of PF loans, such as securing project sites, acquisition of project rights, possibility of accepting project rights, possibility of payment of investment proceeds, etc. at the time when the defendant received investment funds of 200 million won from the victim, as properly explained by the court below, and the victim did not properly proceed with the project of this case.