The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the misunderstanding of facts was recommended by D and H, and the defendant remitted money to the defendant, and there is no fact that the defendant made a false statement to the victim through D and H.

In addition, when considering that D has opposed to the victim's additional investment, even if the defendant's deception is recognized, the defendant deceivings the defendant about the additional investment in addition to the initial investment amount.

It is difficult to see it.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, deception as a requirement for fraud means any affirmative or passive act that has a fiduciary duty and duty in good faith, which is widely observed in property transaction. The deception by omission refers to a passive act that a person subject to duty of disclosure under law does not inform the other party of a certain fact with the knowledge that the other party was involved in a mistake. If it is apparent that the other party would not have been aware of the fact in light of the empirical rule of general transaction, if it would have been evident that the other party would not engage in the pertinent legal act, it is legally obligated to notify the fact in light of the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3263, Dec. 8, 1998, etc.). In determining the establishment of fraud by deception of investment money, even if an investor provided an explanation of investment money with the intent or ability to return the principal within a certain period of time even if it was used by the investor with the intent to pay the investment money and explained it to the investor within a certain period of time.