The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the entry of the document submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal shall be considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the grounds for appeal) is as follows. The defendant did not have recruited the crime of this case with D, did not participate in deception against the victim F, and did not have any intent to commit fraud.

The punishment of the court below (10 months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

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.

The injured party was introduced from D as a gold owner around July 2016 (Evidence 2: 336 pages of evidence records) and D as a gold owner, even in the process of publicity of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the injured party introduced D as a gold owner.

The Defendant made a statement (Evidence No. 2, 337 pages). The Defendant stated that “The Victim, who will deduct the money invested by the victimized party, from the Company, was able to act on his own on the premise of being funded (Evidence No. 224 pages),” and that “a business investment agreement entered with D” (Evidence No. 1, No. 580, No. 581) written by the Defendant, the Defendant made the victim believe that the victim is funded by D in relation to the project promoted by D.

The Defendant issued D a false balance certificate, a copy of a false passbook, etc. forged through AE (Evidence No. 311 pages of evidence, trial record No. 118 pages), and the Defendant was aware that D knew that D would attract investors using the aforementioned false data (Evidence No. 2:17 pages of evidence No. 2). There was accompanying the victim at the time of delivery to obtain investment (No. 121 of the trial record). If the Defendant satisfies certain conditions, the Defendant was able to use large amount of money stated in the aforementioned false data.

One of the arguments is that the above argument cannot be trusted against the very exceptional and common sense of view, and the defendant recognizes that the above false materials have been forged at the investigative agency.

“....”