The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, explained all facts pertaining to the business of the victim, and thus did not deceiving the victim, and there was no intention to commit fraud against the Defendant.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The admissibility or credibility of a confession in the court below cannot be deemed to be doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court below differs from the testimony in the court below. In determining the credibility of a confession, considering the following: (a) whether the contents of the confession statement itself have objectively rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the reason leading up to the confession; and (d) whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confession among circumstantial evidence other than the confession, it should be determined as to whether the confession in the court below made a reasonable doubt as to the grounds stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or the motive or process of the confession.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1151 Decided July 22, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1419 Decided May 31, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091 Decided September 28, 2001, etc.) B.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant cannot be deemed to have been led to adviser, assault, threat, unreasonable prolongedness of physical restraint as prescribed in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or by deception or by other means, and even with regard to the contents of confession, there is objective rationality since the defendant has received a loan or investment of KRW 60 million in total by deceiving the victim although he did not have an intent or ability to make a profit, and there is no inconsistency between the defendant's oral statement in the court below and other circumstantial evidence different from the defendant's oral statement in the court below.