The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

[Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal] A summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant did not receive a loan from the victim D, C, F, G, E, or H but paid a considerable amount of interest to the said victims; (b) the Defendant did not deceiving the said victims in connection with the investment, nor did he had intention to commit fraud.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, as it is too unreasonable.

(F) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the market (the fraud of each fraud of the case in 2014 high-class 243), this part of the facts charged can be fully recognized, and the statement of the witness R of the party in the trial alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① D, C, F, G, E, and H have made a very specific and consistent statement to the effect that they correspond to the facts charged in this part at an investigative agency or the original court.

There is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of confessions made by the police and the prosecution, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of such confessions.

② The amount that D, C, F, and G paid to the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s credit business is agreed upon by the Defendant to pay and return a certain amount of interest, and it is reasonable to view it as a loan as the Defendant’s assertion.

However, since the above contents of the above agreement are stated in the facts charged, it cannot be viewed that this part of the facts charged is different from the fact on the ground that the above victims' nature of the money paid to the defendant is a loan.

(3) Even if the Defendant’s assertion is based on, the title of this part of the facts charged is “investment money fraud,” which can be seen as a brief indication of the existence of a monetary transaction in relation to credit business).