The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendant has publicly notified the summary of the judgment of innocence of this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely receiving KRW 500 million from E, the head of E, and there was no investment or loan of KRW 300 million from E.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the prosecutor’s burden of proof in criminal proceedings, the criminal intent in fraud and the intention of unlawful acquisition, and thereby recognizing the facts charged of this case, and thereby, is excessively bound by the confirmation of the civil judgment between E and the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. On December 29, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act at the Seoul Central District Court on December 29, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 9, 2010.

From July 2007 to May 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would create KRW 200 million to make an investment to B, who is a securities expert in the career of several hundreds and twentys of years, and would make an investment as KRW 700 million after one year. The Defendant would make a living with the said money as well as making an investment with sufficient security and making an investment. The principal would not be subject to loss because the Defendant would be able to make an investment.” Accordingly, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would make an investment as a securities expert in the career of twentys of age and twentys of age.”

However, even if the defendant received investment money from the victim, he did not have an intention or ability to create KRW 700 million after one year without loss of principal.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim and let the victim know the account password so that the defendant can manage the account and manage the account if he opened a securities account in the name of the victim at the school guarantee G branch where F, a private village of the defendant, F, and so on.

Accordingly, on May 29, 2008, the victim met F at the school guarantee G branch in the school guarantee sphere around 2008.