The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of receiving goods from the victims, was making efforts to enter into an advisory service contract or negotiate with a third party at the time of receiving the goods from the victims, and was engaged in soliciting agents, and was able to receive the investment money or receive the deposits from the agencies that received the investment money.

In addition, if the commodities supplied by the victims are sold and the funds are returned, the price of supply could be paid to the victims sufficiently.

As the victims and disputes are deepened and the goods are not supplied at the time, the investment attraction, agency recruitment, sale, etc. are not realized according to the project plan formulated by the defendant, and eventually, the victims are not paid the price of the goods, and there was no intention to obtain the money from the

Since the amount of supplied goods agreed between the defendant and the victims includes 10-15% of the net profit of the victims, this part should be excluded from the value of the property, the court below erred by including it in the total amount of money.

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

2. Determination

A. First of all the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the health room, and the defendant alleged that they had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation as in the trial of the court below, and the court below determined that the charges of this case are guilty on the grounds that the defendant had the intention to commit the crime of defraudation by taking into account the circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated.

The following circumstances revealed according to the above evidence, namely, the defendant's intensive provision of goods from victims, according to the middle half-yearly radius in 2016, and D's payment to the ten employees, office monthly rent, and trademark use contract.