The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In the event that Defendant (i) mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is delivered to KRW 1 billion of investment under an investment agreement by the victim, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim regarding the technology, etc. of this case. Even if the Defendant was aware of the fact by deception, the KRW 1 billion invested by the victim was directly managed by the victim and executed the funds, and thus the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the dispositive act by the victim is not recognized, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged

Dob. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In addition to the investment amount of KRW 1.1 billion under the investment agreement with the defendant, the victim deposited an additional amount of KRW 215 million into the company D (hereinafter “D”) account constitutes an act of disposal with a causal relationship with the defendant’s deception, and thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the trial at the lower court. The lower court rejected all of the above arguments by clearly explaining in detail the judgment on the assertion that there was no deception, ② the assertion that there was no causation between deception and disposal, and ② the determination on the assertion that there was no causation between deception and disposal. In comparison with the records, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and it is not determined that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles,

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(b) prosecutors;