The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) is that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and had the intent and ability to return the principal and the proceeds.

2. Determination

A. Around 2010, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that the Defendant was a customer at the victim C’s string house operated by Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and that the Defendant was frequently present at the above string house, and that he was working as a member preparing D.

On March 2014, the Defendant stated, in the above restaurant, that “six directors working in D have created an investment team. In doing so, the Defendant would give 1.5% interest per month when making an investment because there is young pets making an investment. The principal is in charge of internal responsibilities, and is in charge of safety support at any time.”

However, the Defendant did not work as a member preparing D, and around March 2014, the balance of the investment account did not amount to five million won, and some of the investment funds received from the victim used it as a derivatives investment, and there was no intention or ability to return the principal as agreed even if he received money from the victim for the purpose of personal use, such as living expenses or credit card payment.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 20 million from the victim’s bank account in the name of the Defendant on March 18, 2014, to transfer the sum of KRW 20 million from the victim’s bank account, and received a transfer of KRW 130 million in total from that time to April 4, 2016 to the F bank account in the same manner as indicated in the attached crime list.

B. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

C. There is no room for a judge to make a reasonable doubt about the conviction of the relevant legal principle 1 in the judgment of the political party.