The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the misunderstanding of facts has remitted money to E and invested in E by remitting money to the bank accounts used by E for the E’s refund project, and there has been no investment or lending of money to the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts can be recognized.

(A) The defendant and the victim in the course of remittance of the victim are pro-Japanese, and the victim have been able to return E in China while hearing the statement that there is a lot of profits, and remitted KRW 75 million over nine times as indicated below at the defendant’s request.

At the time of remitting the above money, the victim only appeared to talk about the business of returning money from the defendant, and did not talk about E or divided conversations.

The remittance amount of the remittance account of KRW 10,000,000 on April 6, 2009 shall be the national bank account under the name of KRW 10,000,000 in the name of G, the national bank account of KRW 10,000,000 in the name of G on April 7, 2009, H bank account of KRW 10,000,000 in the name of the national bank account under the name of KRW 10,000 in the name of H on April 9, 209, the I bank account of KRW 5,00,000 in the name of KRW 5,00,000 in the name of J bank account of KRW 7,00,000 in the name of KRW 7,000,000 in the name of the national bank account under the name of KRW 7,000 in the name of J bank account of KRW 10,00 in the name of the victim;

4.7. Of the remitted KRW 40 million, KRW 25.5 million was remitted to the account in the name of L used by K.

K returned KRW 25 million among the 50 million invested in relation to E’s exchange projects, at the court below’s ruling, K stated to the effect that “it invested money in trusting the Defendant as it did not appear only one time at the time of investment of KRW 50 million.” The investigative agency stated to the effect that “50 million was lent to the Defendant.”

2. The victim shall be a person who has suffered losses on January 2, 2009