The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The victim was aware of the fact that the designation of a tourist destination with F as a tourist destination was invalidated and that the right to use a hot spring was not secured at the time when it was granted the investment money as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant also notified the victim of the above fact. Therefore, the Defendant did not

B. The lower court’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court that the victimized person was aware of the invalidation of the designation of a tourist destination, and the Defendant also notified the fact that the designation of a tourist destination was invalidated, the victim did not know that the designation of a tourist destination was invalidated, and the Defendant did not notify it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that this part of facts is erroneous is without merit.

① The victim consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court below to the effect that “F was unaware of the invalidation of the designation of tourist destinations in Korea, and the Defendant did not notify the same” (Evidence No. 97 of the evidence record, page 56 of the trial record). (2) The Defendant stated in the relevant civil litigation (hereinafter collectively 46832 of the Busan District Court Decision 2014) that “the Defendant did not have any reason to notify the victim of the invalidation of the designation of tourist destinations” through the party examination (Evidence No. 56 of the evidence record), and also stated in the investigative agency to the same effect (Evidence No. 265 of the evidence record). (3) The Defendant confirmed the technical service contract in which the content of the service was added, such as “the designation of a tourist destination”, while directly paying KRW 100 million to G, and thus, was aware of the invalidation of the designation

However, in the court of the court below, the victim presented the technical service contract (which seems to refer to the contract of December 8, 2008 attached to the defendant's appeal) before investing in the defendant.