The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing) argues that the sentencing of the court below is excessively unreasonable considering the following: (a) the defendant did not deceiving the victim to acquire money by deception; (b) the defendant merely committed a misunderstanding in trade; and (c) the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty was erroneous by misunderstanding the facts; (d) even if the defendant was found guilty, the defendant had a claim for attempted money against the victim; (b) the defendant did not deliver part of the amount for repayment; and (c) agreed with

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, who had previously traded the victim, requested delivery of 15 million won and 150 million won and 15,000 won to the defendant. The defendant received 15 million won and 15,000 won from the victim and delivered only 5,478 won and 5,000 won as of October 26, 201 when the delivery date was set. Further to the above facts, the defendant could have held at least 3,70,000 won and more over 3,70,000 won and more over 3,70,000 won against the victim. In full view of the above facts, it is recognized that the defendant had not mentioned the existence of the above outstanding amount and the deduction between the defendant and the victim, and that the defendant did not arbitrarily notify the victim of the existence of the above outstanding amount and the payment of the remaining amount to the victim, and thus, it is found that the defendant did not arbitrarily acquire and dispose of the victim's profits.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing.