The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 8, 2011, the victims of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles knew that G was aware that at the time of the payment of investment money, G invested in the purchase business of Cambodia with the money invested in D’s operation, and the Defendant had the ability to repay at the time, and thus, the Defendant committed deception.

It can not be said that there was a criminal intent to acquire by deception or to commit a crime against the defendant.

B. Taking account of the fact that the victims of unfair sentencing received some dividends, the lower court’s imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant considered that the police and the prosecution had not made a profit deposit in G before February 8, 2011, and that, although G invested the money transferred by GH in Cambodia’s gold purchase business, it did not pay an amount of money to be invested in a portion of money.

However, H and P did not notify the victims of this fact by selling gold and giving the principal and profits.

The principal actually conducted a verification inspection in Cambodia as to whether the gold purchase business is in progress, and returned to the Republic of Korea on March 1, 2011, notified the victims that the investment amount was invested in Cambodia's gold purchase business, and received a strong claim from L.

In full view of the facts stated in the judgment below, it is recognized that the defendant did not notify the victims that the investment amount would be invested in Cambodia's purchasing business at the time of receiving the investment amount stated in the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below and that the victim L would not receive the payment of the reasonable dividend, and it is proved that the defendant did not notify the victims that the investment amount would be an investment in Cambodia's purchasing business at the time of receiving the investment amount from the victims and that the victim would have become aware of the above facts.