The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the possibility of an urban development project undertaken by the Defendant, the Defendant remitted money, and did not at all set the name, conditions of use, and maturity.

At the time of receiving money, the defendant set up a mortgage on the land owned by the defendant and provided a sufficient security, and thereafter suggested ways to pay debts by utilizing the land provided as a security.

In the end, even though the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not intend to commit the crime by deception, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the criminal intent of deceiving the defendant can be recognized in light of the fact that if the defendant knew the fact that he would not immediately receive money from the injured party due to repayment of the existing personal debt or living expenses, etc., he would have not invested in the whole amount of his old age fund, etc.

In light of the evidence records, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below is conducted, and when comprehensively examining the various evidences of the court below, even if the defendant received money from the injured party, he was to use the money for his personal debt or living expenses, etc., but he could fully recognize the fact of deceiving the injured party by deceiving the money from the injured party as if he made an investment in the land to divide the market price difference.

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the said money because he/she had set up a collateral security right of KRW 300 million on the land of Pyeongtaek-si with sufficient collateral value by receiving money from the injured party.

However, the defendant is now on the land.