The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

However, as to Defendant B, this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts) Defendant A’s project to build a new complex building with the victim E in Kazakhion A (hereinafter “instant project”).

) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”)

After introducing Defendant B, who is the actual operator of the instant business, the victim’s obligation to pay according to the instant investment contract was merely jointly and severally guaranteed by the victim, and did not participate in G’s investment and fund operation. In addition, at the time of investing KRW 500 million in relation to the instant business, the victim was sufficiently capable of promoting G’s funds and projects at the time of investing KRW 500,000, and the project of this case was revealed, and the project of this case was no longer executed as the global financial crisis that occurred later. Therefore, it cannot be said that Defendant A deceiving the victim, obtained the said KRW 500,00,000 by deceiving the victim, or had the criminal intent to acquire the said KRW 50,00,00,000, or that there was the criminal intent to obtain the said money by fraud

B. The prosecutor (defendant B) stated that Defendant B was responsible to receive investment from the victim.

In addition, considering the fact that Defendant B prepared an investment contract to the victim retroactively as of June 8, 2007, Defendant B was in charge of managing funds, such as G, as the head of the management headquarters of G, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have agreed on the victim’s investment as the Defendant’s punishment, and that part of the victim’s investment amount was used for Defendant B’s personal purpose, Defendant B may sufficiently recognize the fact that Defendant B committed the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant B not guilty on the ground that there is no causal relationship between the remittance of the victim and the act of deception by the defendant B, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.