The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant did not say that D had entered into a product supply contract with the U.S. Empt, it was a failure to endeavor to take over a standardized table factory. Since D had been employed as the vice president of G Co., Ltd. operated by D, the defendant was in a position to receive investment on behalf of D and entered into an investment contract with D. The defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, nor did he had the intention to acquire by deception.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail by explaining the grounds for detailed judgment.

The first instance court's judgment was clearly erroneous in the first instance court's determination when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court's judgment, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the hearing.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no objective reason that may affect the formation of a new conviction in the trial, and there is no reasonable ground to deem that maintaining the judgment of the lower court is remarkably unfair in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the content of the reasoning of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

In comparison with the first instance court's decision on the argument of unfair sentencing.