The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not mislead the victim that “the Defendant received an investment from the doctor while operating the E Company, and led to the K Company to hold the K Company, etc., and that the victim would return the profits of 18% after 2 years after the investment of KRW 100 million, and will also guarantee the principal.”

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As long as a disposition of misunderstanding of facts is recognized as the authenticity of its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intention in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein.

In the event of a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the parties, the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the parties shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. In addition, if the parties are clearly aware of their common intent, the declaration of intent shall be interpreted

However, when the meaning of a person who has expressed his/her intent is different from that of the other party, how the other party who received the declaration has understood the content indicated by a reasonable person.

The expression of intent should be objectively and objectively interpreted in consideration of whether it can be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, 19783, Feb. 15, 2017). The Defendant is unable to make a false statement that the Defendant is a stock company E when considering the relationship between the Defendant and the victim.