The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The Defendant merely explained the victim of misunderstanding of facts about the business plan and prospects of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant is responsible for the livelihood of his family and is supported by his mother and the disabled, and the defendant suffers from the storm, the sentence of the court below which sentenced one year imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in indictment as to the applicable provisions of this case to “Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act” in the judgment of the court below, and this Court permitted the changes, and thus the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

B. Determination of the grounds for appeal on the ground of appeal: Provided, however, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the grounds for ex officio reversal as seen above

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court can recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged, thereby deceiving the victim of KRW 84,00,000.

① The victim has consistently and specifically stated the circumstances leading up to and details of deception from the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial at the trial court at the trial court at the same time as to the circumstances leading up to and details of deception (in case where the share price is up to two months and the factory will be operated around June 2012, there is a safety device for E to receive return of the investment amount through the said shares).

(2) E is the defendant around May 2012.