The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The prosecutor's remaining appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the statement, etc. of promotional materials made by the defendant to attract victims to investors, the defendant himself/herself made an invention.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the victims of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the technology was not patented technology but was falsely publicized as if it were patent technology.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) The judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts in this part of the facts charged (1) was made by the Defendant on July 6, 2012 that “W” was rejected by the Korean Intellectual Property Office on the ground that “the person with ordinary knowledge in the technical field to which the invention pertains can easily make an invention, and thus cannot obtain a patent,” and subsequently, even if there was no patent-related technology promoted by the Defendant, it was by advertising “patent-related technology” from June 8, 2012 to November 21, 2013, by deceiving 39 victims by means of advertising “the patent-related technology” and by deceiving 55,447,582 won in total from the victims as investment money.

(2) As to the facts charged in the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant applied for a patent with respect to W on July 6, 2012, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record. On August 20, 2012, the Defendant was notified that the said invention could easily be patented by ordinary technicians, and thus, was not subject to patent registration, and thus, was notified of the submission of an opinion thereon. On December 18, 2012, the lower court rejected the patent application on the said system on December 18, 2012, and the Defendant again filed a patent application on the said system on June 14, 2013, and the instant company advertised the instant credit card device.