The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is erroneous (the defendant did not acquire investments from the victim by deceiving the victim although he was unable to normally operate the private teaching institute) and unreasonable sentencing. 2. The key issue of this case is whether the defendant, at the time of receiving a large amount of money of KRW 130 million from the victim in lump sum, can be said to be “the defendant has no intention or ability to pay the victim any proceeds from the operation of the private teaching institute” or “the victim has no intention or ability to pay any proceeds from the operation of the private teaching institute.” In other words, in the instant case where the first instance court and the trial court have duly adopted and investigated evidence, ① the defendant was given investments from the victim in relation to the nature of the money that he had been consistently received from the investigative institution to the court of the first instance and stated that he did not receive any proceeds from the borrowed money, and the defendant was aware that he was unable to obtain any funds from the victim as a witness at the time of receiving the funds from the private teaching institute to the extent that he actually received the funds from the victim, including the funds from the victim.