The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was operating a normal system at the time of the victim’s accession to the system, but the Defendant was unable to pay the guidance money to the victim because the victim and the fraternity members received the guidance money failed to pay the guidance money properly.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime by deception.

B. The first instance sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay the guidance money to the victim normally at the time of receiving the payment from the victim as stated in the judgment of the first instance, and the criminal intent of defraudation.

① The Defendant had operated more than 150 fraternitys from around 2006 and had not paid the fraternitys properly, and was under the circumstances in which the fraternitys continued to organize the fraternitys and received from the newly organized fraternitys to the previous fraternitys.

② The Defendant was used in paying fraternitys from the victim to the members of other fraternitys.

③ The Defendant was a situation in which the deposit amount to be paid by himself was in excess of KRW 30 million per week.

The defendant did not receive the fraternity payment from the members who did not pay the fraternity payment even though he was receiving the fraternity payment from the existing fraternity, and there was no way to pay the fraternity to the victim except for the use of the fraternity payment by newly organizing the fraternity.

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

B. The scope of damage on the assertion of unfair sentencing was not small and the injury was not recovered or agreed.

It seems that the first instance court has determined the punishment in consideration of all favorable circumstances to the defendant, and then the sentencing is made.