The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

provided, however, that the sentence shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. The lower court determined that the “agreement on the acquisition of a pre-loan agreement” drafted on December 4, 2014 cannot be deemed as a document prepared by the Defendant and the victim.

The "agreement on the acquisition of a pre-loan contract" has a seal affixed with K seal, which is the spouse of the victim, and considering the contents of the agreement, testimony of F, etc., the agreement on the acquisition of a sub-lease contract is also deemed to have been prepared by the defendant and the victim. Therefore, the defendant's assertion

However, the defendant guaranteed the minimum amount of eight million won per month and received the money from the victim, and recognized that he used the money to return the money to the previous partners, such as the return of lease deposit, rent, management fee, and collection expenses.

According to the evidence submitted, the existing partnership relationship of the defendant was not operated and arranged, and the store operated by the defendant at the time of the occurrence of competition store in the vicinity was unable to pay the profits.

The defendant did not have any money invested separately in C, was thought to operate C with the money of the victim, but after the previous relationship with C was terminated, C was not operated properly.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant received money from the victim as a means of investment or loan, despite being aware of the fact that the principal was unable to return as well as the payment of a certain amount of profit.

As seen earlier, the lower court erred in its judgment by misapprehending the validity of the sub-lease agreement.

However, this only affected the judgment of seriousness of the crime, and it is not problematic to recognize the establishment of the crime of fraud even if the acquisition of the sub-lease contract is excluded from the agreement.

In conclusion, the defendant's mistake of facts.