The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) The victim D merely invested in the business of health functional foods conducted by the defendant, but did not lend money, and the defendant did not deceiving the victim D.

2) The Defendant did not mislead the victim E of the intention or ability to guarantee the right to purchase the Yong-Nam-Nam, “G,” which is functional health foods.

3) Although it was true that the Defendant did not pay wages to J, there was an inevitable circumstance that was unable to pay wages, and that the Defendant believed that he would offset his claim against the J’s wage claim, and thus did not have any intention to delay in payment of wages.

4) Although there is a fact that the Defendant filed a complaint with D and K, the contents of the complaint are consistent with the overall facts and are merely an exaggeration of some circumstances.B. Even if the Defendant’s act of sentencing is found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (one and a half years) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the victim D's assertion that it is sufficient to say that the act of deception as an execution of fraud is the basis for judgment on the other party's act of disposal of property which the actor wishes to dispose of (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2828 delivered on February 27, 1996, etc.). It is sufficient to say that the act of deception as an execution of fraud does not necessarily require false indication on important parts of the juristic act, and it is sufficient to say that it is the basis for judgment on the other party's act of disposal of property which the actor wishes to dispose of (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2828 delivered on February 2

In other words, if property is given, fraud is established because it constitutes deception on the intent of performance or the existence of performance ability (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7481, Nov. 24, 2005, etc.). Moreover, our Criminal Procedure Act adopts as one of the elements of trial-oriented principle.