The defendant is innocent.

The court rendered a not-guilty verdict to the effect that the defendant had the right to receive and dispose of the goods.

Since it cannot be seen, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the first deliberation.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio reversal of the grounds for appeal due to the amendment to indictment, the Prosecutor made a false statement on June 20, 2017 that “When the Defendant has invested ten million won in the D company, the Defendant would pay three million won per week to the victim E at the D office located in the sixth floor of Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building around August 7, 2015.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not invest in the D company even if he received KRW 0 million from the injured party, but was planned to use it for the recovery of investment money from the defendant and other investors, so he did not have the intention or ability to return it to the victim with the amount of KRW 12 million invested in the company.

As above, the Defendant was issued 9.1 million won from the victim, namely, by deceiving the victim.

The judgment of the first instance court was no longer maintained because the court applied for permission to amend the bill of amendment, and this court permitted it, and the object of the judgment was changed.

B. The judgment of the changed facts charged (1) as to the changed facts charged was that the defendant "a plan to use it for the recovery of investment money by the defendant and other investors, not for investment in the D company even if 9.1 million won is paid from the injured party," and thus, the defendant's investment in the company was not sufficient to return 12 million won to the injured party." If the defendant made an investment of 12 million won to the victim, he will pay 12 million won to the injured party.

It is false and 9,100,000 won of investment was granted from the injured party.

(2) However, the first instance and.