The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, acquired money from victims for the following reasons.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument is asserted.

1) The Defendant was invested not by borrowing money from the victim D but by receiving investment, and the victim D was fully aware of the financial and managerial status of the performance planning company run by the Defendant, and invested the said money in his own decision.

2) The Defendant had been engaged in money transactions with the victim G for a long time since the instant case. The Defendant repaid the borrowed money normally before the Defendant’s financial and managerial status of performance planning company was omitted, and the victim G was fully aware of the financial and managerial status of the said performance planning company.

3) The Defendant already repaid most of the total amount of KRW 100 million borrowed from the victim E, and the portion that was not changed is merely part of the principal and interest, and thus, the Defendant deceiving the victim E.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant is a person who operated a public performance planning company called F (State) in the instant facts charged.

On January 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would pay the principal and pay the interest to the victim E within three months if he/she borrowed KRW 50,000,000,000 to the public performance currently in existence, because he/she was aware of by telephone from the time when he/she was an employee of the insurance company,” through G, which he/she knew from the time when he/she was an employee of the insurance company.”

However, at that time, the balance of the passbook of the above company operated by the defendant is over KRW 30,00,000, and there are many debts borrowed from others.