The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the part concerning the victim C among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds that the admissibility of the statement made in the victim C’s investigative agency cannot be recognized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, but the victim C’s statement is admissible, and thus, the lower court erred

B. The sentence of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged (1) The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “it shall be repaid without any mold by the end of April 2010 if only KRW 20,00,000 is lent to the victim,” from “O” in the operation of the victim C in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon, on March 2010.”

However, the Defendant continued to operate the “D” at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay money to others even if they borrow money due to the absence of any particular property or income.

Around March 24, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 20,000,000 from the victim as a deposit account in the name of the Defendant for a deposit account in the name of the Defendant.

(2) Around April 25, 2010, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would supply active terms at a low price on the desired date between May 1, 2010 and May 31, 2010 to the victim C by phoneing the price of the active terms to be supplied.”

However, as above, the Defendant continued to operate the “D”, and there was no intention or ability to supply active terms even if he received prepaid payments from others because there was no particular property or income.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, to the flood control account under the name of the Defendant from the victim, was 54,60,000 won around April 26, 2010, and KRW 30,000,000 around April 27, 2010.