The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles, the fact that it was impossible for the victim to return the investment money to the victim because the enemy continued while operating the restaurant in accordance with the business contract that the defendant concluded with the victim, and it was not the fact of deceiving the victim by the intention of deceiving the money of the victim from the beginning.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. In a case where the relevant legal doctrine denies the criminal intent of defraudation by the criminal defendant, the facts constituting the subjective element of such crime are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts having substantial relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes such indirect or circumstantial facts should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the facts based on the sound observation or analysis records based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). (b) Considering the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court as to the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is recognized that the criminal defendant deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged and received the total amount of KRW 170 million from the victim, and also the criminal intent of deceptiveation can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and the above argument by the

(1) If the victim makes an investment of KRW 150 million, the defendant will hold 25% shares in a restaurant.

that it did not mean that it would make an investment of KRW 450 million only, and that it did not mean that it would make an investment of KRW 450 million.

The argument is asserted.

(b).