The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant had the intent and ability to operate a normal system even at the time when the guidance operated by the Defendant was sold on May 2012; and (b) the Defendant did not have the intention to obtain fraud.

The sentence of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of transaction, and the relationship with the victim,

In the lower court, the Defendant asserted that he denies the criminal intent of defraudation, and the lower court determined that the Defendant could fully recognize the criminal intent of defraudation by deception by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the sum of deposits and loans that the Defendant failed to recover from the members of the fraternity around 2010 reaches KRW 2.7 billion; (b) the creditors of the Defendant recovered a considerable amount of loans from the Defendant, and the Defendant was in a state of financial shortage; and (c) the Defendant was financially organized and operated due to the foregoing circumstances after April 2010; and (d) the Defendant did not normally pay the fraternity.

In light of the above legal principles and evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The crime of the instant crime committed by the Defendant by acquiring property or pecuniary gains exceeding KRW 1.3 billion from the victims while operating the Defendant’s unreasonable business on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing is an unfavorable sentencing condition against the Defendant. The fact that the Defendant did not take any particular measures to recover the victim G and H’s damage, etc. is an unfavorable sentencing condition against the Defendant.

However, the defendant is the first offender, and is older than 70 years old, and the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by agreement with the victim F.