The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below convicted the defendant on the ground that the defendant had not received money by deceiving the victim from the beginning because he had recommended or instructed D to make re-investment, and the amount of re-investment has been disbursed with D's consent or instruction, and the defendant did not receive money from the beginning.

The punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

The deception as a requirement for legal fraud related to the determination of the defendant's assertion of mistake refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to comply with each other in property transactional relations. It is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and that it is the basis for the judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the actor wishes by omitting the other party in mistake. Thus, in cases where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been engaged in the transaction if it was notified of certain circumstances, the party to the transaction is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance of such circumstances.

Nevertheless, it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by implied disregarding the fact that such notice has not been given.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that deemed the Defendant guilty of deceiving the victim is justifiable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is rejected.

The injured party shall be from the investigative agency to the original judgment.