The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

① On July 3, 2012, the Defendant explained that the principal of non-performing loans is KRW 1.6 billion (total non-performing loans amounting to KRW 2 billion) and the purchase amount of non-performing loans is KRW 7.53 billion, the actual amount of investment by the victim is KRW 3.55 million to KRW 450 million, and the remaining amount is to be raised through a pledge loan, and the victim has invested in the Defendant after hearing such explanation.

② The Defendant invested 26,874,358 won in the instant investment.

③ If the instant real estate was awarded a successful bid in KRW 1.2 to 1.5 billion, all of the loan, investment principal, and profits could have been paid. However, it was impossible to pay the instant real estate due to the failure to receive the successful bid.

④ The victim directly arranged the loans to financial institutions in the 3th place and 4th place.

Considering these factors, the lower court convicted the Defendant even though the Defendant did not receive money to take property benefits by deceiving the victim.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts can not be said to be doubtful that the probative value or credibility of a confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the investigative agency or the court of original instance differs from the statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of a confession, determination of the credibility of a confession shall be made based on the following: (a) the content of the confession’s statement objectively rational; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason for the confession; and (d) the background leading up to the confession, among other evidence than the confession, does not conflict with or conflict with the confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010).