The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in this case, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim with regard to KRW 80 million, which the victim remitted on October 16, 2015. The Defendant entered into an investment contract with the victim first on October 25, 2015, and there was no direct talk with the victim prior to the conclusion of the investment contract with the victim. The solicitation of the victim was the same as the victim’s birth, and the remittance of KRW 80 million on October 16, 2015 was based on the I’s request. The Defendant became aware of the fact that the victim remitted KRW 80 million to the victim on October 22, 2015. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal relationship with the Defendant, on the grounds that the Defendant had already been aware of the fact that the victim had already received an investment from the university or college from the victim, and that the Defendant had not been aware of the fact that the Defendant had already received an investment from the university or college as a collateral.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the above deceptive act by the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The defendant, while recognizing the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim for the purpose of using the investment money in the part of KRW 220 million, asserts that there is no fact of deceiving the victim with regard to the obligation or security.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired by deception from the victim, as well as KRW 80 million remitted on October 16, 2015. Therefore, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts.

(1) The defendant is a victim on October 16, 2015.