The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to a misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “DID project”), the Defendant was invested in money from the victims after having considered that there was an explanation about the operation and profitability of DID devices from H of the AW where DID devices are manufactured and that there was considerable feasibility and feasibility.

In addition, from December 4, 2009 to January 6, 2010 (the first instance judgment Nos. 1 to 12) the money invested from the victims was paid as the money for the purchase of the DID devices to H. The money was installed and operated thereafter, but the money was not returned to the victims because the amount of the investment and the amount of the profit promised to the victims because the profit was written differently from the expected return, and thus, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the Defendant.

(However, it is true that the Defendant received KRW 175,00,000 in total from the victim G, I, and E as investment funds for the USB business, but the said business was believed to have been well-grounded and explained to the above victims, and that the said victims were fully aware that the Defendant would have good profitability for the above business, and that the invested money was fully paid to the AW, a producer of the USB products, for the re-delivery business (hereinafter “USB business”).

However, the Defendant was unable to be supplied with the USB products from H, and the contract for the USB business entered into with H was terminated, but it was impossible to refund the instant investment funds to the said victims because it did not receive any refund from H. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intent to acquire by deception the investment funds of USB business.

In particular, victim G is not only the defendant but also the defendant.