The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. G operated by the Defendant, a representative director, entrusted the operation of the restaurant to the victim. Around September 2013, the Defendant: (a) stated that the students would gather about 100 students if the private teaching institute opened; and (b) the Defendant planned to operate the private teaching institute by winning a contract for the operation of the cafeteria; (c) the victim had visited the private teaching institute several times before entering into the contract for the operation of the cafeteria; (d) the Defendant retired from the cafeteria for 3 to 4 months after entering into the contract for the operation of the cafeteria; and (e) the Defendant was unable to continue the operation of the cafeteria due to the normalization of the private teaching institute; and (e) the Defendant was unable to return the deposit money to the victim; and (e) the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by deeming the Defendant to have received property by intentionally deceiving the victim.

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the summary of the facts charged in the instant case’s determination of the lower court are as follows: (a) around July 30, 2013, the Defendant operated the restaurant at the E resting place where victims D working in the Busan Metropolitan City captain-gun C, and the victim D’s “G” at the Ulsan-gun F, Ulsan-gun, U.S. F., the Republic of Korea “G” (hereinafter “the foregoing private teaching institute”); and (b) around September 2013, the said private teaching institute is opened and the number of students is equal to approximately 10.