The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles is merely introducing the victim to B, without deceiving the victim in collusion with B, and there was no intention to defraud the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence (fine 2,000,000) against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and, in particular, the statement made by the investigation agency of the victim B and the victim E, the defendant does not merely introduce the victim to B, but also can fully recognize the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, such as the fact that the defendant conspireds with B with the intent to defraud the victim with the intent to deceive the victim. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of the facts of the crime of this case is just

B. Although the defendant does not seem to have committed the instant crime under the lead of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and there are somewhat weak circumstances in which the intent of defraudation is obtained, the defendant also knows the fact that it is difficult for the defendant to implement the acquisition of hospital or the return of investment funds as the promise, the victim is drawn to the instant crime even though he knows the fact that it is difficult to implement the acquisition of hospital or the return of investment funds as the promise, and the crime quality is not less than 135 million won in that

However, at the investigation stage, the compensation was fully paid by accomplices.

The circumstances, such as the background and method of the instant crime, degree of damage and recovery of damage, motive for the instant crime, age, character and conduct, career, home environment, record of punishment, etc. of the Defendant, and all the circumstances constituting the conditions of sentencing as shown in the record and the oral argument in the trial do not change compared to the original judgment.