The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. We examine the assertion or ex officio after the lapse of the period for submitting an appeal for mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

1) The Defendant’s false statement that the Defendant would use the victim as an election fund in the E market, such as the written indictment, did not borrow KRW 600 million at a time, but rather borrowed the victim’s consent by stating that the Defendant would use the first KRW 300 million as an election fund. The remaining KRW 300 million would have been repaid as profits from the increase in real estate tax when investing in the creation of Q located in the E Si population. Therefore, even if the Defendant was guilty, the Defendant is not guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) but should be considered as a substantive concurrent crime under the Criminal Act. 2) Since the Defendant agreed to borrow the above aggregate of KRW 60 million with the victim to repay as profits such as the increase in real estate tax after the creation of Q Q, it should be determined depending on whether the Defendant’s intent to repay and the ability to repay was under way to some extent, not whether the Defendant’s property

In addition, since the Defendant was actually running the business in order to create Q, it should be deemed that the Defendant had the intention to repay and the ability to repay.

B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired 600 million won by deceiving the victim as the E market election fund as stated in the indictment.

Therefore, it is premised on the other facts.