The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The arguments in the summary of the grounds for appeal filed by defense counsel on September 8, 2015 are examined to the extent that the defendant supplements the grounds for appeal.

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant introduced the victim to C upon the request of C to attract investment. On May 25, 2012, the Defendant sent the victim to C, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, at the office of the FNA (hereinafter referred to as the “instant age club”) of the Do Government-si, the “FNAE” office (hereinafter referred to as the “instant age club”) around May 25, 2012, or paid the victim a deposit amount of KRW 400 million for the opening of the instant age club, and invested KRW 160,000,000,000,000,00 won would be 20% of the instant age club shares. In short, the victim did not receive a total of KRW 234,80,000 from the victim under the name of the amount of investment, as it did not appear that the Defendant had determined the amount of investment deposit under the incorrect motive of the instant age club’s investment.

3) In particular, the sum of KRW 90 million issued by the victim around June 19, 2012 and around June 21, 2012, and the victim’s assertion that is confirmed through a written complaint, etc. is already delivered to the head of the relevant accounting division for the opening of the instant age club by a person who became aware of the victim’s assertion that “the defendant and C had no ability to procure the lease deposit by himself/herself nor appropriated it out of the investment funds received from the victim,” and thus, even if there was a deceitful act between the defendant and C in the household, it cannot be deemed that there was a deception and delivery by deception (i.e., there was no causal relationship between the deceptive act and the disposal act).