The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 149,340,00 won paid by mistake of fact to the defendant is the amount invested in or distributed to the defendant, and the defendant also paid the proceeds by settling accounts to D in cash or in the name of D, and there has been no deception that the defendant was engaged in a loan business with D.

I on September 2, 2015 and the same month.

9.9.9. The amount of KRW 50 million paid to the defendant was lent to the defendant, and at the time, the defendant had the intention to repay his ability and performance, and the defendant did not deceiving I.

I, through Q’s account, remitted 4,9230,00 won to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant’s mother, was the amount invested by the Defendant, and I and the Defendant settled accounts in cash for the proceeds of investment, and the Defendant did not induce I.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In view of the spirit of the substantial direct deliberation principle adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous in its determination as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance trial.

Unless there exist special circumstances to view that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial is significantly unfair, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the additional examination of evidence by the time the appellate trial ends, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the sole ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial differs from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2551, Apr. 15, 2016). The Defendant also has the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.