The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Sticklews;

The summary of the reasoning (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant had the intent and ability to sell the victim to the Korean department stores located in China, but the victim was unable to move to China due to the circumstances of the victim. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed as deceiving the victim, as stated in the facts charged.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, on the grounds that the Defendant sufficiently recognizes the fact that the Defendant, as if he could obtain profit from the sale of the goods supplied by D, by selling the victim to the so-called “Korean department store” in China, and by deceiving the victim as if he could obtain profit from the sale of the goods supplied by D.

① The victim, at the office of D Co., Ltd., explained the contents of the same business as stated in the facts charged, and at the time, the Defendant received money from the injured party and prepared a receipt.

statement is made.

The defendant is the representative director of D, and the contents of the above business in the trial court was feasible.

In light of the fact that the defendant made a statement, it seems that the defendant made an implied agreement on the explanation of the H's business to the victim.

② Since 2012, D Co., Ltd., a representative director of the Defendant, was engaged in any business activity since the victim had no particular sales data or details of report on value added tax until the victim paid the instant money.

It is difficult to see that D Co., Ltd. leased stores of Chinese broadcasting offices and “Korean department stores” to realize the instant business.

Although there is no evidence to see that the Defendant submitted a self-real estate lease agreement on May 1, 2015, stating H as the lessee, with the materials supporting him/her, the above real estate lease agreement.