The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, the crime No. 2, 3, and 5 of the judgment shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In the reasoning of appeal, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake of facts, did not deceiving the victim of the crime No. 5 (2019, 194 case), as stated in the judgment of the court below, nor had the Defendant had the ability to repay and had intention to repay.

However, this Court stated that all of the above crimes were recognized at the second trial date (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 16-17, Dec. 1, 2020). Accordingly, it is deemed that the judgment of the court below excluded the misconception of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above crimes.

1) As to the crime No. 1 of the holding of the lower judgment (2019 Gohap89 case), the victim made an investment of KRW 700 million to the Defendant and received the profit equivalent to the commission for the recruitment of union members according to the recruitment of union members.

On the other hand, there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim or causes mistake with the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

2) As to the crime No. 2 of the holding of the lower judgment (2019 Gohap92 case), the Defendant did not deceiving the victim through B.

In addition, since the defendant merely explained the degree of investment right or investment to the victim, the defendant deceivings the victim with the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3) As to the crime No. 3 of the holding of the lower judgment (2019 Gohap 128, 2019 Gohap), the victims were accused because the Defendant had the intention and ability to sell them.

There is no intention to commit fraud.

In addition, since the regional housing association project of this case was normalized, the victims did not eventually incur losses.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of one year and six months, No. 2, 3, and 5 as indicated in the holding) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. As to the crime No. 1 in the judgment below (2019 High 89 Case), the Defendant asserted that this part of the judgment below is identical to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

As to this, the lower court.