The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① The defendant was found to have been used for the issuance of 30,000 U.S. dollars 300,000 U.S. dollars 200,000 U.S. dollars 200,000 U.S. dollars 200,000 after the payment was made under an agreement to be issued by E-2 visa rather than EB-5 visa; ③ the defendant was in progress the application procedure for receiving E-2 visa under the above agreement; ③ the defendant was not issued with fault, rather than the defendant's negligence, the victim was more negligent than the defendant's fault, ④ the victim was able to be able to receive the visa; ⑤ the victim was able to return USD 500,00 if the non-party refuses to be issued.

Of the statements made in the court below by misunderstanding the legal principles, part of the statement made by the victim F in the court below, which contains T's statement in the U.S. Embassy issuance affairs is the statement made by a person other than the defendant on the trial date, and thus, it is not admissible because it does not meet the requirements of Article 316 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The punishment of the court below (two years of probation, three years of probation, 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.

Judgment

The lower court, on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, found that ① the credibility of the victim’s statement is recognized, ② the sum of USD 500,000 remitted by the victim was paid for the direct investment purpose of the issuance of visa, and most of them was merely used for the expenses of studying abroad, etc. not directly related to the issuance of visa, and the Defendant and B used most of the money suffered from the victim from the prosecution as the company’s operating expenses.

The statement was made (No. 14th, 472th, 15th, 491, 492th, 682, 686th, 21th, 205th, 705 of the evidence 6862st, 6862st, 686th, 705 of the 2015 highest order of 6862st, 15th, 492).