The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and had the intent and ability to re-purchase the shares sold to the victim, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

Despite this, the first instance court's finding the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant may be found to have obtained money from the injured party by entering into a re-purchase agreement with a stock company D (hereinafter “D”) without any intent or ability to purchase the shares, even though the listing is unclear as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.

When looking at the listing proposal for the preparation of Samsung Securities, D states that the hostile conversion in 201 is anticipated and that there is a risk of disadvantage in value.

In light of D's proposal for listing of Korean investment securities, D seems to have deteriorated profitability in 201, and there is a concern about the continuity of a company as it appears that D will have deteriorated profitability in 2011.

(B) Nevertheless, the Defendant purchased D shares in the process of soliciting the purchase of D shares by the victim.

D's estimated sales amounting to KRW 80 billion, and sold SK Telecom, Gangwon Ireland, etc.

A false statement was made to the effect that “a person satisfies the listing requirements.”

The Defendant received KRW 80 million from the damaged person, and used it individually, and refused to request the purchase of some of the shares from the damaged person from September 2012.

The Defendant had property, such as real estate and partial deposits, at the time of receiving money from the victim. However, even if it was impossible to fill in the repurchase of shares, and even if it was impossible to repay the purchase price, it appears to have received money by deceiving the victim without the intent of repayment.