2. The summary of the judgment of the court below is not to attract the victims to make investments by means of influence of the size and certainty of future revenues to be obtained from direct investment object by Defendant A, but to induce the victims to make a follow-up investment to the third party to whom the direct profits accrued by the victims, by deceiving the victims to make investments or to make investments to the third party. In this case, the defendant's investment act of the victim, beyond having a mutual cause relationship, must be seen as having a reasonable relationship with the ordinary citizen by explaining the profitability of the subject of investment object as a matter of course in light of all circumstances, including the victim's social, economic status, occupation, experience, knowledge, etc., beyond having a relationship between the victim and the damaged party, by explaining the profitability of the subject of investment object. Such relationship should be supported not only by the victim's statement, but also by objective circumstances such as the defendant's experience, knowledge, investment power, return rate, success rate of investment at that time, and the victim's investment relation with the victim's statement or the victim's act of disposal.

It shall not be readily concluded.

In doing so, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant A has promised to make an investment to the victims, even though the victim's statement is reversed without consistency according to the circumstances, or the remaining evidence except for the statements of B and C whose purport is not clear.