The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine or misunderstanding of the intent to maintain a transactional relationship with the victim to the extent of forging a fund investment contract, and the Defendant paid a considerable portion of the price incurred from the transaction after the use of the said contract, but did not make additional payments due to the aggravation of management circumstances. Thus, the Defendant did not have any capacity or intent to make payment from the beginning.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., ① the food materials cost that was not paid to the victim around June 4, 2012 was already 66 million won or more, and the victim refused to supply more food materials than 66 million won. As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as if he could resolve the outstanding amount with the investment fund by forging the investment contract, etc., thereby inducing the victim to continue to supply the food materials indicated in the facts charged. ② At the time, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to resolve the outstanding amount or to repay the outstanding amount in full, and the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the outstanding amount of the food materials that was supplied during the period indicated in the facts charged. In full view of the fact that the outstanding amount was additionally generated due to failure to repay more than 60 million won among the food materials cost of KRW 228 million,000,000,000.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court was unable to obtain an investment in the funds, based on the aforementioned circumstances.