The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding A, together with U, led a Y business (hereinafter “instant business”), and the Defendant was only engaged in the same conduct as the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below in accordance with A’s instruction.

The defendant did not know that A was aware that he deceivings the victim T to acquire money.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of fact and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant was in a project of this case, and the Defendant knew that A was not capable of raising funds for the project of this case. It can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① On February 20, 2012, the Defendant recommended the victim T to make an investment, arranged Manam for an investment agreement with U.S., and also prepared an investment agreement directly. However, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the Defendant prepared the agreement by asking the victim via telephone (Evidence No. 44 of the Evidence No. 4 Book No. 1 of the Evidence No. 44), and subsequently, played a major role in the instant crime, such as obtaining the victim’s seal impression from Z juristic person, corporate passbook, etc.

② The instant project is called “AR” (hereinafter referred to as “AR”), and the Defendant stated to the effect that: (a) AR decided to take charge of the authorization and permission business; (b) A/D decided to take charge of land procurement business; (c) A/R was locked around December 201; and (d) A/D was no progress in funding; and (c) C/D was eventually irdivated (Evidence No. 9, No. 48, No. 49 of the evidence record No. 43).

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on February 2012, made an investment in the middle of the third month, with the funds necessary for the instant business from the Defendant to the Victim T, within two months. When the said business is conducted, the Defendant would be able to obtain a profit of KRW 100 billion.