The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) In relation to the investment of futures option in the name of the futures option investment fund, there was no deception of the above victim D, such as guaranteeing the principal and profits to the victim D, and there was no intention or ability to make profits, and therefore, there was no intention or intent to commit fraud. 2) The victim D paid the money necessary for the sale as the purchaser in relation to the development of real estate for the purpose of the loan fraud. Since the defendant borrowed the money from the above victim in relation to the above land, there was no difference in the fact that the defendant borrowed the money from the above victim in relation to the above land, the defendant did not acquire the money from the above victim under the name of

3) The Defendant’s embezzlement is a remodeling work on the building owned by the Defendant between the victim C and the victim C, and the construction cost was agreed that the Defendant would cover the lease deposit for the lease and the receipt of the said building on behalf of the said victim. As such, even if the Defendant individually used the leased deposit 50 million won received by the said building to I, it does not constitute embezzlement. (B) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment is too unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the fraud of 1 futures option investment in the context of misunderstanding of facts, the court below stated that ① the defendant is a victim D who was introduced through F as an expert in futures option trading, and that “it is possible to pay more than 30-400,000 won a day through futures investment program developed by the defendant, and if it is invested with a loan from a financial institution because it does not fall under absolute damages, it is difficult for the defendant to abide by the promise as well as the principal and interest of the loan.” However, due to the nature of futures trading, it was difficult for the defendant to observe the promise.