On August 2, 2010, the acquittal portion on fraud is reversed.

Of the facts charged of this case, August 4, 2010

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) The Defendant merely made soup a soup to C, the victim, a misunderstanding of facts, that it would be the date of making soup; and (b) did not agree to pay the victim’s profits without any conditions; and (c) the consideration for the victim’s investment money is the land located in the F at the time of

In addition to not only did they agreed to return the investment amount and did not have agreed to do so, but also did not have the intent or ability to pay the investment amount at the time of receiving the investment amount, and thus, the defendant did not have obtained by deceiving the victim with the money in the name of the investment amount, and the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings C and acquired a total of 6.43 billion won through 46 times from May 4, 2009 to June 2, 201, by deceiving C, but the court below acquitted him of this part of the facts charged.

B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor around August 2, 2010, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant by deceptioned C and acquired by deceptioning KRW 170 million around August 2, 2010, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles. 2) The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued that the judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of mistake of fact is identical to the above argument of mistake of fact, and the court below rejected the above argument by giving a detailed statement on the decision.

Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court on the circumstances stated by the court below.