The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles [the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) for the victim E] There was no deceiving the victim E with respect to technical cooperation with G professor or the exclusive sale of stem cell extraction equipment, and there was no intention of deceiving the investment money.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the Victim E by receiving investment or loan from the victim E even though the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to repay the false facts, and that the Defendant also had the intent to defraud the Defendant.

① Although the Defendant was making a verbal technical cooperation through Q, G, the land of G, the lack of funds and G’s conference, and eventually, between F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) and G, the technology related to stem cells and the patent contribution or joint research related thereto did not run entirely.

The Defendant did not have any G and G, and the Defendant was the Defendant’s share to Q, and 20% of the Associate F’s shares were unilaterally provided regardless of G’s will.

The Defendant, even if the research institute was established in the future, notified the victim E of the false fact as if the F had already shared the technology and patent about stem cells with G professor Team, continued joint research, and had related technology.

(2) Victims E and P shall be a victim, and the defendant shall be a policeman on October 2013.