The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The nature of the instant money given by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles is not a loan for investment in the Nambling Site Business, and the Defendant did not have deceiving the complainant as stated in the facts charged, and there was sufficient opportunity for the Defendant to make repayment and to make repayment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant received the victim’s “F hotel in the vicinity of Gangwon-do, where there was a building in D, and the F hotel in the building and G amusement center in the said building” in the residence of the victim C in the Seocho-si apartment in the early February 2012, the Defendant was well aware of the funeral of the entertainment center.

In this regard, a person who has invested KRW 200,000 in an entertainment place shall receive money with a maturity of the person who has invested in the amount of KRW 200,000,000, and if the money has been omitted, 4% of the interest per month shall be given, and the principal shall be repaid after one year.

‘Falsely speaking, the date of payment was 200 million won as of February 22, 2013, which was 200 million won as of February 22, 2013.

However, in fact, the Defendant took over the above hotel and the above hotel, and had been operating the enemy who suffered loss of the number of million won each month, and had been operating the private gambling site from January 18, 2012 to overcome this, the Defendant did not use the money from the damaged party to return to the existing investors as above, but was planned to use the said entertainment shop operating expenses, the above gambling site operating expenses, and the living expenses, etc., so the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the principal to the victim as above.

On February 22, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) transferred KRW 55 million to the H account under the name of the Defendant on February 22, 2012; and (c) transferred KRW 145 million to the K bank account under the name of the Defendant’s wife on February 24, 201.