A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. In the process of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim and had ability to pay the amount of KRW 100 million.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty and erred by misunderstanding the legal principles on the crime of defraudation and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below argued that the defendant has no intention to commit fraud, and the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the defendant's assertion and judgment under the title "the defendant's assertion and judgment" in the judgment.

In light of the following circumstances, the court below’s reasoning that recognized the evidence of this case, even if the defendant received money from the victim as investment money, he/she could not have any intent or ability to repay the money within the time limit which he/she promised to do so.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

1) The victim consistently stated that he/she would return the principal within three months and received the investment amount, and that the statement of F’s F’s statement (55 pages of the trial record) submitted by the Defendant also complies with this, and thus, the victim’s above statement is credibility. According to the victim’s statement, the Defendant promised to return the principal within three months, and further, the victim was aware that he/she would have to return the principal before he/she moved in an apartment house around August 2018. However, in the instant case, objective data related to the Defendant’s assertion in relation to the officetel business were submitted.