The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts was in a business relationship with the victim H or L, and the victims invested money under the name of the partner, but the business was not well conducted and thus the Defendant filed a complaint.

Not only the victims but also the defendants have invested the full amount of the establishment capital at the time of the establishment of the KUU, and have made efforts to successful business such as continuous investment in order to run the business.

The money invested from the victim H or L was used as a business-related cost that the defendant was not personally useful.

A person who enters into an investment attraction advisory contract with a victim'sO and received the retainer shall be L and not the defendant.

Although the defendant was not a contract entered into by himself, he was in a partnership relationship.

L을 통하여 ㈜Q 의 사업 계획서를 전달 받았고 위 회사에 투자 유치를 하고자 노력하였다.

B. Even if the Defendant was guilty, the Defendant would be punished to the maximum extent for the Defendant by taking account of the following: (a) the damage was recovered in the sum of KRW 39 million in the case of the victim H and L; (b) the Defendant invested more than KRW 100 million in the business process and failed to attract investment despite having made maximum efforts to attract investment; and (c) the Defendant did not systematically approach the victims to attract investment, and there was no benefit from the Defendant’s personal acquisition of the money received from the victims.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the appellate court as to the assertion of mistake of facts (victim H and L have made a concrete and detailed statement concerning the Defendant’s deception, and the victims’ statement about the content and method of deception are considerably consistent. As such, the victims did not trust the Defendant’s investment ability or ability to repay.