The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant merely transferred the shares of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant stock company”) to the victims, and, to the victims, the victims (in the event of investment in the instant stock company run by the Defendant, the Defendant purchased facilities and raw materials using the investment money, transferred a patent registered in the name of the Defendant’s father to the instant stock company, and distributed 50% of the business profits every year by utilizing real estate located in gold production in the name of his father as the production factory.

There is no deception from “the fact”.

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

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below 1) The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant, around August 2010, at E office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, and that the defendant would purchase equipment and raw materials using investment funds in the stock company run by the defendant, and that the patent registered in the name of the defendant's father with the patent transferred to the stock company in this case and used real estate in the name of his father as manufacturing factory to distribute 50% of the profits of the business every year.

“.” From January 201 to March 201 of the same year, the victim N,O, P, Q, and R through the victim G at the above E office, etc. from the victim’s perspective to the victim’s March 201.

However, in fact, the defendant received investment money from the victims and used most of them for personal purposes. The defendant did not intend to purchase facilities and raw materials for the above company and did not intend to make a free contribution to the above company. Therefore, even if the defendant received investment money from the victims, he did not have the intent or ability to distribute some of them to the victims.

Nevertheless, the defendant is the above.