The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

The Defendant did not conclude to the effect that, if the Defendant invested KRW 100 million in the casino customer attraction project (hereinafter referred to as the “J business”), the Defendant would pay KRW 10 million or more per month to the victim as its profits. Since the Defendant’s 100 million amount received from the victim was an investment in the Red Gift-Related Business (hereinafter referred to as the “J business”), the Defendant did not deceiving the victim.

In addition, the defendant had sufficient financial ability to repay the disease, such as raising considerable profits through the business.

The punishment of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court on the non-existence of a deceptive act as to the assertion of mistake, the Defendant would pay KRW 100 million per month to the victim more than KRW 100 million if the Defendant invested in the victim's disease insurance business.

It can be recognized that the defendant acquired 100 million won from the damaged person by falsity, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant recommended the Defendant to invest KRW 100,000 in the victim’s disease-related disease-related business, and the Defendant’s profits may be KRW 10,00,000 per month.

(2) According to the Defendant’s reply and the Defendant’s statement at the Prosecutor’s Office G, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) and the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the contract was terminated on December 3, 2014, and it appears that the contract was not re-contract due to the Defendant’s low performance of attracting customers, financial burden issues, etc. (Evidence 1:21-28 pages of evidence record). In addition, as examined in the following sub-paragraph (2), the Defendant reported damage to the Defendant as a business, as it did, but did not explain the above facts (see, e.g., evidence record 1:21-28 pages).