The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant used the money invested by the victim for the purpose of production, etc. in accordance with the investment agreement, but failed to return the investment money due to failure in the business contrary to the original plan, and did not receive money from the beginning with the criminal intent of defraudation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On February 17, 2011, the Defendant, at H hotel coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, held the right to use the portrait right of celebC Drat I, which was the main official of “MBC Drat I”, to the victim F. The Defendant could have a lot of profits if he manufactures and sells Kim using J’s portrait right. However, he did not produce money because he did not produce money, so if he borrowed money, 50% of the sales gains would be paid by producing Kim.

However, in fact, the Defendant had already failed to sell the 20,000 Kim Kim products. The Defendant thought that most of the money borrowed from the victim would be used as the Defendant’s personal debt repayment and company operation expenses, and thus, there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the victim.

The following day after the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received 30 million won from the victim under his/her name under the name of the Defendant from the victim to the CT Bank passbook (Account Number K) under the name of the Defendant, under the pretext of making an investment in the said place.

2. 18. Receipt of remittance of KRW 22.5 million to the above passbook, for the same year.

3. 25. 25. The above passbook received KRW 82.5 million in total, such as receiving KRW 30 million as the above passbook and acquired it by deception.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the evidence of the lower court, and based on the evidence of the lower court, such as the content of the revenue distribution contract concluded on February 17, 201 between the Defendant and the victim, the Defendant and the victim’s prosecutor’s statement, etc.,