The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not have the intention of deception and deception against the victim of mistake of facts, which is erroneous in the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of the instant case, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the credibility of a confession in the court of first instance, it cannot be said that the probative value or credibility of the confession is doubtful solely on the grounds that the confession in the court of first instance differs from the statement in the appellate court. In determining the credibility of the confession, the determination shall be made on the confession of the defendant, taking into account the following: (a) whether the content of the confession itself objectively lacks rationality; (b) the motive or reason behind the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason for the confession; and (d) the circumstance leading up to the confession, among the circumstantial evidence other than the confession, that there is no conflict or inconsistency with the confession, as stipulated in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or that there is

(2) The Defendant, who was under detention at the court of first instance, led to the confession of the facts charged in the instant case and denied it at the court of the first instance. However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant had a liability of KRW 600 million at the time of receiving investment money from the victim, and the Defendant did not register a patent as to the first black fever business of this case. There was no other means of raising funds, and there was no other means of raising funds from the victim, and there was no thought that the Defendant was able to use the funds from the beginning to pay the debt, etc. upon receiving investment money from the victim. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not notify the victim thereof.