The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant received 120 million won from the victim D as investment money from J Co., Ltd., the Defendant had no intention to obtain the money from the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is more severe.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is sufficiently recognized in full view of the following circumstances after the court below duly adopted and investigated evidence, and the above assertion is without merit.

0 The Defendant invested the full amount of the investment money received from the victim in connection with the investment in the trade of officetels to the JA without any consent of the victim on the same day.

The defendant has not paid the principal of investment and profits to the victim up to now.

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even if considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.