The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to fraud against the victim C, the Defendant did not deceive the victim or conspired with D.

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

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued this part of the facts charged, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by clarifying detailed circumstances, including the fact that, in order to operate and manage the instant X-ray, the Defendant: (a) deposited KRW 200 million in the instant private entity PP (hereinafter “P”); (b) the Defendant was required to pay additional deposits, etc. for direct operation of coffee as discussed in the victim; and (c) the Defendant was unable to directly operate the coffee, even though he did not notify the victim of the fact that he did not directly operate the coffee; and (d) even if the payment deposit for the victim was paid in P deposit and the return of the deposit was completed, the Defendant did not explain the fact that it is difficult to return the deposit to the victim even if he did not receive the refund of the deposit.

Examining the evidence of this case closely, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.

The Defendant alleged to the effect that there was no relation between attracting additional deposits on P or direct management of coffees because the Defendant had the right to host coffees in a company operated by the Defendant. However, according to the understanding letter submitted by the Defendant, etc., the Defendant: (a) the Defendant: (b) the Defendant: (c) had to retain the deposit amount of KRW 200 million in return for licensing operation; and (d) the electronic bills issued by the Defendant were refused to pay the deposit amount of KRW 100 million; and (c) the Defendant asserts that P does not return the deposit amount on the ground that the Defendant did not refund the deposit to the victim.