The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim on the ground that the Defendant received an inquiry from the victim about the investment partner and thought that he would receive more than 30% of profits through the bill discount.

The Defendant was actually investing in the discount of bill, but its profits did not reach the expectation.

The defendant was aware that he could obtain 30% or more of the profits due to the mistake that he did not know sufficiently about the discount of bill, etc. in advance, and he did not have the intention of deceiving the victim from the beginning.

At the time of borrowing, at the time of borrowing, the Defendant had the ability to repay in possession of the land, retirement allowances, etc.

Even though the victim was predicted or could have anticipated the risk of not being able to receive the money borrowed by the defendant due to the loan, the victim continued to transfer the money to the defendant for the purpose of obtaining interest income. Even if the defendant's deception is recognized, it cannot be said that there exists a causal relationship with the act of disposal by the victim.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (seven years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the grounds that the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and that the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on detailed grounds.

In light of the following circumstances, the court below's aforementioned determination is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Defendant

In addition, as the defendant did not know to some extent to make profits through the bill discount, 30% profits of the victim per annum.