All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding 1) The first instance judgment (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2018DaMa413) (the Daejeon District Court 2018DaMa413) did not deceiving the victim'sO as to the defendant's intent or ability to repay money from the victim'sO. Thus, the lower court's conviction on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) the lower court's judgment (the Daejeon District Court 2017DaMa902) (the Daejeon District Court 2017DaMa902) which the defendant received from the victim E and F, and the defendant does not bear the duty to return the above investment money, and there is no fact that the

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: the fine of KRW 5,00,000, and the second instance judgment: the fine of KRW 2,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. As the first and second judgments of the lower court appealed in the trial, each of the crimes in the first and second judgments against the Defendant became concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In such cases, in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Code, one punishment shall be sentenced simultaneously, so the judgment of the court below 1 and 2 cannot be maintained any more.

However, even if the judgment below has such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The first instance court denied this part of the facts charged, asserting that “The victimO will make an investment in money to the Defendant with knowledge of the Defendant’s difficult financial situation, and the Defendant does not have an obligation to return the investment money to the victimO,” but duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.