The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the crime of 2019 Highest 742 in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant informed C and E of the risk of non-performing loans of this case to the victims of the above case, there was no deceiving of the victims.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

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

2. Determination

A. In a case where the appellate court’s determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. was made to re-examine the first instance court’s determination ex post facto and ex post facto, even though there was no new objective reason that could affect the formation of documentary evidence during the trial process, it was obvious that the first instance court’

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). Furthermore, the subjective constituent elements of fraud should be determined by taking into account objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s re-determination before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction, unless the Defendant is led to confession. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a dolusive intention is sufficient.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416 Decided February 28, 2008, etc.). The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court appears to have not invested in the case where the victims who did not have any investment experience in purchasing insolvent bonds have been sufficiently notified of the risk as the Defendant alleged in the summary of evidence. The Defendant did not have served in the F.