The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The meaning of “the entry confirmation” recognized by the Defendant and the victims of the mistake of facts refers to that I notified the Defendant that “the Defendant would be prepared by informing the location of the entry,” and thus, the Defendant did not have deceiving the victims, nor invested the victims by mistake.

The defendant only spent all of the investment funds of this case to the cost related to the salesroom, but did not have acquired them by fraud.

B. The sentencing of the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant, even though he had been aware of the fact that there was no fixed sales price in the monthly World Cup store of the Home Puss Corporation, had the victims enter into a business district protection contract (provisional contract) with the awareness of the fact that there was a clear sales price, and then acquired each of the above documents by deceiving the victims as a down payment. Then, the victim G entered into a business start-up contract with the victim G, and acquired 150 million won in terms of the cost of opening the rest of the start-up store, by deceiving the victim H to enter into a joint start-up contract, and acquired 100 million won in total under the pretext of the rest of the investment money. Even if the evidence presented by the Defendant at the trial, each of the above documents alone is insufficient to recognize the above fact, and there is no contrary evidence.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s background leading up to each of the instant crimes, the content and degree of deception, the scale of each damage amount, and the victim G return approximately KRW 70 million to the victim H, and the Defendant did not recover from damage, except where the Defendant paid a substitute payment in the amount of KRW 10 million to the victim H.