The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not receive investment money by soliciting the victims to make an investment, and instead lent money to the victims B and J.

As the victim B did not pay the money borrowed from the defendant, the defendant filed a criminal complaint against the victim B, and the defendant did not file a criminal complaint against the victim B due to false facts.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on this ground as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the relevant legal principles and the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

B. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing is that although the defendant deceivings the defendant to invest in an enterprise producing base materials for cancer treatment by deceiving 647,720,247 won and 1 of the victim was committed as fraud to cover the fraud, the defendant did not recognize his/her own crime and rather did not seem to have an attitude against himself/herself, such as gathering victims, etc., by submitting false evidence, and attempted to make a confusion in judicial proceedings, the victims did not completely recover from damage, even though they were able to prevent damage from being incurred by the wind that the victims gather and invest money to the defendant, the victims submitted a variety of written application and want to punish the defendant. Although the defendant was prior to the 1996, the defendant was punished twice as a fraud, it has the power to have been punished by a fine.