The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant claiming the misunderstanding of the fact about the fraud by proxy invests the victim in D, which has its head office in Brazil, and the victim has not received the investment profit due to the failure of the D's business, so there is an intention to defraud the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant acquired the amount of damage by deceiving the victim.

The wrong determination was made.

B. The lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable even if it is not so, even if so, it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of factual mistake is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant was paid dividends in proportion to the investment amount (3 million won per annum), recommended allowances, and support allowances at the website opened D, and there was no cash or bitco refunded from the headquarters. ② The Defendant paid dividends to the existing investors, such as the victim, etc. with the investment amount paid by the new collective investors, ② The Defendant paid dividends to the new collective investors, such as the victim, etc., ③ This structure is not different from the so-called “return fraud”, and thus, it is sufficiently foreseeable that the payment of dividends to the existing investors, such as the victim, would be prevented, such as the victim, if there is no new scale of investor, and ④ the Defendant is a company that actually manages the investment amount, as it actually receives profits from the business, and as it actually receives profits from D or bit from D’s website.