The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, believed that the horses of the RR, Australia, Australia, will raise funds to the victim.

Although there was no ex post facto plan to raise funds through the above R, there was no fact of deceiving the victim and there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below concerning the misunderstanding of facts, it can be recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim and defrauds the money, and the criminal intent of the defendant is also recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

① In the course of investigation and trial, the Defendant reversed the content of the statement by: “The reason why the Plaintiff did not raise funds to the victim is that the contract with the Veterans Association was nonexistent due to the demand of the Veterans Association for a large amount of rebates (see, e.g., No. 1 right 26 of the investigation record); “The reason why R did not work” (see, e.g., No. 1 right 235 of the investigation record); and “The reason why the Defendant did not conclude a contract with T in time due to the internal circumstances of T which set up a complex building on a S project site,” etc. (see, e.g., trial records).

② The Defendant stated to the effect that “R provided its own security to obtain SBLC equivalent to USD 30,000 from the Hong Congo HSBC, and then intended to raise funds from a domestic bank by using the said security” (No. 1 of the investigation record No. 27), but there seems to be no obvious reason for R to provide its own security for the Defendant, and there is no data to verify what the Defendant served in detail in relation to the instant case [the Defendant delivered the money received from the victimized person to R as hotel expenses, sojourn expenses, gift expenses, etc.].

However, there is no supporting material.