All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

but for three years from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The respective types of punishment (Article 1: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first and second years) that the original court rendered on the accused by the original court (Article 1: 2. 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor for the second and second years) are too unreasonable.

B. Legal principles (the second instance judgment) did not know the victim'sO at the time of committing the instant fraud, there was no fact that the Defendant did not know, and there was no fact that the Defendant recommended the said victim to make an investment.

In addition, there is no fact that G induces the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the appeal case against the lower judgment was consolidated by examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, and each crime of the lower judgment against the Defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the lower judgment cannot be reversed in its entirety.

B. However, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined.

3. According to the judgment of the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant: (a) requested G to invite investors to make a large profit by so-called operation investment; (b) the victim heard the Defendant’s talk from G and delivered the Defendant’s investment money through G around August 2012; and (c) the Defendant transferred the said money to the victim’s investment money at the time of receiving KRW 38 million from G on August 24, 2012; and (d) the victim transferred the direct investment money to the account under the name of the Defendant after November 2012.

In light of the above circumstances, the defendant is going through G under the pretext that he invests in so-called operation.