The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were actually underway E projects, but the investment amount was not smoothly recruited as stated in the opinion of the Defendant, and the project was suspended due to the health problems of G, thereby making it impossible to return the investment amount to the victim.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime of deception and deception.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion after specifically explaining the same in three to four pages of the judgment of the court. In light of the circumstances decided by the court below, the intent of defraudation is recognized.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records of this case is justified in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s liability is not somewhat weak in light of the background of the instant crime, the amount obtained by the Defendant, etc.

However, the defendant paid most part of the amount of damage to the victim for the first time, and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim.

In full view of such circumstances and other circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable and unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

[Discied Reasons for Judgment] Summary of facts constituting a crime and evidence