The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles only entered into a comprehensive partnership agreement that distributes profits and losses with the victim, there was no fact that the victim provided scrap metal to the victim or received investment money by specifying the individual name, and actually used the victim's investment money for business purposes, such as purchase of scrap metal, it is not the victim by deceiving the victim without any intent or ability to distribute investment proceeds or scrap metal, and therefore, K's business rights, etc. up to KRW 200 million, as security for the victim's investment proceeds, criminal fraud is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in June of one year and six) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio on May 12, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to one year of suspended sentence for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act by the Suwon District Court on May 12, 2010, and the decision became final and conclusive on May 20, 2010. Each of the crimes in the holding of the court below is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined separately after examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment, taking into account the balance between the cases where the judgment becomes final and conclusive, pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is examined.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances, i.e., the victim delivered money to the defendant under the same name as the facts stated in the facts constituting the crime in the original judgment, and the profit or scrapion, which was promised by the defendant.