A. Since a victim of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have invested funds in business operation by actively assisting and assisting the F with the explanation of the game business, the defendant cannot be deemed as deceiving the victim.

The defendant, as a partner, was in charge of managing the investment money and did not have the intent to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the statement of the victim without credibility. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles also argued the same purport as the argument in this part, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion by deceiving the victim in a situation where the defendant was aware of the fact that even if he was paid the money from the victim, he did not have any specific plan or ability to run the gambling game business and may not run the game business even if he was paid the money.

A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records are as follows: ① The victim is acknowledged to have heard about a game business directly from F, but the defendant demanded the victim to make an investment and received direct money in the circumstances properly explained by the court below; and the defendant called at the investigative agency to bring an investment to the victim; and the defendant called at the investigative agency to bring the amount of money continuously (the investigative record 396 pages); and “F-friendly” was a server manager who works for the game business.

G-friendly Gu of G is F.