The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged on June 29, 2016, the fraud is committed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not borrow or have received investment from C by deceiving D, such as the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (10 months of imprisonment) of the judgment of the first instance court on the accused of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the fraud of December 23, 2013, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) although the Defendant was unable to express his intent or ability to return or repay the energy intermediary business normally or even after the discontinuance of the business, the Defendant was unable to do so; (b) around December 23, 2013, at the G office of the Co., Ltd., the Defendant rendered a false statement to the effect that “I will return 45 million won after being used only for maintaining the balance of the G account of the Co., Ltd. in order to maintain the balance of the company; and (c) even if the business was discontinued, I would like to make a final judgment after the first instance trial, even though there was no objective reason to have an effect on the formation of a new evidence in the process of the trial, and thus, I would like to make a final judgment clearly after the first instance trial.”

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court shall not be reversed without any such exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017).