The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was planning to run the instant business by using the money invested from the initial victim, and actually carried out the said business, but the said business was not carried out due to legal disputes between superior business operators, and the above business was not carried out as a result, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim from the beginning, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor conducted the facts charged 9 through 15 of the facts charged at the trial, “However, the permission to collect earth and stones from the head of the District Office of Education of the G Misony Gis on August 31, 2012 was obtained at H, and it was no longer possible to transport earth and rocks since the permitted period of permission expired, and thus, the Defendant could not pay the proceeds promised to the victim, despite the fact that the Defendant was unable to confirm it and receive the investments from the victimized person.”

“However, in fact, the permission to collect earth and stones at H is obtained from the said G Air Conservation District Office of Education on August 31, 2012, and it was no longer possible to transport earth and stones any longer due to the expiration of the permission period as of August 31, 2012. At the time, D did not transport earth and stones at the said G Air Conservation District Office of Education on the level of ten dump trucks, and it did not have any profits equivalent to KRW 25 million per month to D due to such transport of earth and stones, and therefore there was no intent or ability to pay the proceeds promised to the victim.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed,” and this Court permitted this.

As the subject of the judgment was changed, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake still exists.