A. In spite of the fact that the Defendant received the instant money from the victim for the purpose of living expenses and marriage funds, but did not defraud it under the pretext of investment funds, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below reasoned that the defendant introduced the victim as the head of the Daejeon District Court's criminal division of the Daejeon District Court's criminal division, i.e., the defendant paid money to the victim in preparation for the victim's living expenses and subsequent marriage. However, the defendant consumed not only the defendant's living expenses but also the amount of 347.5 million won received from the victim for personal purposes, such as repayment of personal debts, credit card usage fees, etc. This is inconsistent with the defendant's defense. ③ The defendant introduced him as the head of the Daejeon District Court's criminal division of the Daejeon District Court's criminal division of the victim's friendship with F and G, ④ In particular, if G leaves the place of work and it is difficult for the victim to move back, the victim stated that "the building was invested after ice." The victim would have been entrusted with the management of the building, and that the victim would have continued to pay the money to G at the time when 20 years have elapsed since he responded to the victim's profits."