The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to fraud), the Defendant was entitled to return the investment profits as promised by the victim if the H sale contract with G was properly implemented. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent to deceive the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the crime of 2019 highest order 2880 of the judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the crime of 2019 highest order 4864 of the judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 2015, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on the part of the Defendant: (b) the victim D, who became aware of the fact that he had been aware of influence in the trade name in the Gyeonggi-si, the Gyeonggi-si, via C, of the “business of selling all the houses in lots,” and (c) the amount of KRW 100 million would be KRW 150 million after one year after the execution of the electric house sales business.

“A false representation was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant was trying to carry out the electric house sales business, such as purchase of land, civil engineering work, and construction, with money borrowed from the land in the absence of the Defendant’s funds, and even if there was no specific business plan or financing plan, there was no intent or ability to return the investment money and profit within the time limit in which the Defendant promised to return the profits through the electric house sales business, even if he did not receive the investment money from the damaged party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) received KRW 100,000,000,000 in total from the bank account in the name of E used by the Defendant from the victim; (c) on November 2, 2015, KRW 30,000,000 on November 2, 2015; and (d) on December 7, 2015; and (e) KRW 100,000,000 on December 10, 2015, including KRW 10,000,000 on December 29, 2015.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2) The lower court’s determination is based on its stated reasoning.