The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victim of mistake of facts D was well aware of the progress and profitability of the business in the same manner with the Defendant, there was no intention to deceive the victim D and to defraud it.

In addition, in the case of victimO, the defendant did not borrow money directly from victimO, and there was no intention to acquire the money.

Furthermore, the principal borrowed from the victimO is KRW 35 million.

B. In light of the fact that the funds received from the victims of unfair sentencing are used to hold an actual competition, and that they are against themselves, the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the Defendant had been operating the company prior to the instant case, but no profit was realized; (b) the Defendant was in a closed position at the time of the instant case; (c) the Defendant had no other property or income; and (d) the Defendant offered a false joint venture investment document in the name of S; and (c) the Defendant stated to the effect that he would repay the borrowed money with a profit from holding the U.S. competition; and (c) the Defendant’s company operated the borrowed money entirely from the victim D andO; and (d) the Defendant’s personal deposit or profit from holding the U.S. competition was almost no profit.

In light of these circumstances, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victims, it seems that it is difficult for the defendant to repay it with profits through the holding of the U.S. Congress, and there is no ability to pay it.

Therefore, the criminal intent of this case is recognized.

In addition, according to the above evidence, the victimO also heard the explanation that the defendant would pay the borrowed money through D through the holding of the U.S. competition, and trust it to the defendant that he would return the total amount of KRW 50,77 million to the defendant.