The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant, who misleads the defendant of the summary of the grounds for appeal, did not deceiving the victim D.

The punishment of the court below (3 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The following circumstances may be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake in fact.

In the investigation agency and this court, the victim met the defendant on November 1, 2009 by introduction of the first policeman E, and the defendant needs to provide the victim with the balance certificate equivalent to KRW 20 million, and the victim will pay the above amount of KRW 40 million after two weeks, if the victim pays the above amount.

In other words, the defendant paid 2 million won in cash and 18 million won in the account transfer;

The statement was made (Evidence Nos. 16 through 18 of the evidence record, No. 42, 43, 55 of the trial record) by the head of the Tong provider (Defendant) (Defendant) (Defendant) made a copy of the front and balance of the head of the Tong 10 billion won cash balance to the depositor (victim), and the victim provided 20 million won to the defendant as a performance commitment amount. In both the victim and E in the court of original instance, there was an agreement (Evidence No. 11 of the evidence record) in the name of the defendant that the defendant's employee prepared the above agreement at the defendant's location (No. 53 & 68 of the trial record), and the signature of the defendant stated in the above agreement was based on the defendant's will.

The statement was made (54 pages, 69 pages for the person who signed by the defendant) (the victim was directly made by the defendant.)

E made a statement (the trial record 54 pages) that the defendant had had an employee;

Although the statement was made (69 pages of the trial record), considering the circumstances that the time when the victim and E made a testimony in the court of original instance was about eight years after the date of the testimony in the court of original instance, the difference in the above statement does not reject the credibility of the victim and E's testimony. As seen earlier, all of the two persons prepared the above agreement on the job of the defendant, and the defendant's signature as stated in the above agreement is the defendant's seal.