The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles as to the statute of limitations (1), since this case was prosecuted after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the statute of limitations, thereby making an substantial judgment.

(2) misunderstanding of the legal principles on fraud: Money a defendant received from a victim is an investment under a business agreement, and the defendant fulfilled his/her obligations under a business agreement.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. The Defendant is not the Defendant, but the Defendant, who did not deceiving the victim, and arbitrarily consumed the proceeds from the disposal of the bus purchased with the investment funds received from the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of fraud is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine (related to the statute of limitations), the Defendant and the defense counsel also asserted the same.

In light of the legislative intent of Article 253(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act that provides for the suspension of statute of limitations after specifically examining the date and time of the crime, details of the crime, investigation conducted by the police and the prosecution, the status of entry and departure of the accused, etc. as shown in records and pleadings, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations has been suspended for the period from December 26, 2006 to September 3, 2008 during the period from October 23, 2010 to October 5, 2012 during which the accused was staying abroad, and rejected the above assertion by the accused and the defense counsel.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the misapprehension of legal principles (related to fraud) and the assertion of mistake of facts, the facts charged in the instant case is found guilty, and is relating to fraud.