The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although misunderstanding of facts recognizes the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no fact that the victim was deceiving in the process and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim, thereby deceiving the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1) From August 2013 to November 201, 2013, the Defendant committed a crime of deceiving approximately KRW 1.2 billion in the name of investment, such as acquiring approximately KRW 1.0 billion in the name of the investment fund, by stating that if the Defendant invests KRW 1.2 million in the unit of a mobilephone sales business and a vehicle security loan, 1.2 million in the amount of investment will be paid every 50,000 won from the following day after the investment. Accordingly, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a period of one year at the Seoul Central District Court on October 24, 2014, and violating the Act on the Regulation of Fraud, etc. (hereinafter “Separate Judgment”).

A) According to the separate decision, ① the Defendant received the investment money from 24 times from the day following the receipt of the investment money in the form of payment of KRW 50,000 won per 1 million, and around October 2013, the Defendant already received the money from a large number of victims as the principal and interest to be paid to the victims has already been paid as investment money. ② Apartment apartment and land in the name of the Defendant had already been provided as security, and there seems to have been no particular property (Article 2 subparag. 351, 354 of the Investigation Record). Also, the Defendant received from the victim “the amount of KRW 30,000 per month in terms of the profits from the investment money,” and “the victim.”