The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who received KRW 70 million from the injured party and used it to make investments in the stock investment. However, in the process of receiving the above money, the Defendant did not say that the victim would make investments in the stock farm business of this case and delivered it to the Defendant even though the victim knew that the above amount would be used for the stock investment. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the contrary, even though the Defendant did not deceiving the injured party.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case and defrauds the victim about KRW 70 million. Thus, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty as to the facts charged of this case is justifiable, and there was no error of misconception of facts as alleged by the

The injured party has consistently been delegated by the Defendant with the authorization and permission business concerning the instant stock farm business to D representative E, who is carrying out the instant stock farm business. If the injured party borrowed KRW 70 million from July to August, 2015 in terms of the above business expenses, it would be paid KRW 80,000,000,000, including interest from the said E, to December, 2015. The injured party would have received money from the said E in return for the said business expenses, and would have repaid the Defendant a loan of KRW 70,000,000,000,000 from the said securities.

The statement is stating that the victim's statement is somewhat inconsistent with the detailed use of the borrowed money and the question of whether the above money was visited prior to the issuance of the borrowed money, but it is rather natural memory due to the passage of time.