The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (a factual mistake) believed that the Defendant trusted the horses of K and investment in “G” would have made profits, and there was no intention to acquire money by deceiving the victim F, I, and J.

The court below pronounced guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. A prosecutor (1) Although there was no allowance for investment money in G at the time of mistake of facts, and the defendant did not have sufficient means to guarantee the investment principal to investors, the defendant can be recognized that the defendant agreed to guarantee the principal of investment by allowing the victim to pay normal allowances to the victim C, thereby deceiving the above victim and defrauding the investment money, and the defendant can also be also recognized as the intention of defraudation.

The court below rendered not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The relevant legal principle of fraud is established when a prosecutor makes a judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts by deceiving the other party by deceiving the means of deception, and thereby acquires and acquires the property by deception, and even if considerable consideration has been paid in the process, it does not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6012, Oct. 11, 2007). The intent of defraudation in fraud is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime.

(2) In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2864, Jun. 27, 2006).