The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant believed that I and his will make an investment of KRW 300 million, and argued such circumstances to the victim and took over the DNA set (hereinafter “instant marina”), which the victim operated, but did not pay the acquisition price due to the failure to receive the investment money from I, and did not intend to acquire the instant marina or its sales price from the beginning.

In addition, since the Eart of this case was returned to the victim, the amount of damage is only KRW 120 million, which is the unpaid amount of the goods.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In full view of the circumstances established by the evidence duly admitted and examined, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the above grounds. The court below determined that even if the defendant received the instant marina from the victim, he could not have any intent or ability to pay the price as agreed upon, and could not determine the amount acquired by deducting part of the purchase price or the amount recovered by the victim from the amount equivalent to the value of the instant marina, even if the defendant paid part of the price after the fact or the victim recovered part of the damage by returning the instant marina, even though he did not have any intent or ability to pay the price as agreed upon.

The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.