The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In fact-finding, the defendant agreed to receive 50% of the loan from the victims who were introduced from the relative to receive a loan from the victim as a fee, and only received 50% of the loan according to the agreement, not the victims' investment in the defendant.

Also, it is necessary for the victims to use the credit card of the victims in cash.

It is only used by giving cash equivalent to the same amount in advance and not by fraud.

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

Judgment

A. In light of the following circumstances, which can be known through the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be recognized as having obtained investment money or credit card equivalent to a sum of KRW 288,874,793 from the victims as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

1) The victims consistently stated to the effect that “the Defendant paid cash or allowed the use of a credit card to recommend an investment that he would be 2-3 times the principal after the Defendant had neglected re-defense, and having reconcepted.” The Defendant also stated in the investigative agency and the lower court’s trial that he had re-fluented the victims by drinking or showing the money from the victims, and that the Defendant received cash or credit card from the victims, etc., and recognized all of the crimes.

3) Although the Defendant asserted that the victims asked the Defendant to provide loans, there is no economic need for the victims who are young women who have engaged in ordinary social life to receive large amounts of loans. 4) The Defendant asserted that the victims agreed to pay 50% of the loans at the fee, but this contradicts the common sense and the rule of experience.