All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, on the date and time indicated in the facts charged, obtained an investment of KRW 26 million from the victim to make an investment in the shares as anticipated by the victim, and did not return the principal and interest in view of losses, and did not receive the said money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged (the Defendant did not have made an agreement with the victim regarding re-performance or profit guarantee.

(2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant asserted that the judgment of the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was identical to this, and the lower court rejected the judgment on the Defendant’s and defense counsel’s assertion.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim while the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the principal and to pay the proceeds as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the lower court’s finding of facts and determination are justifiable, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In the investigation agency and the court of the court below, the victim often stated that the defendant has the land in his own country and that the defendant owns the apartment house in the 90 million fake Gyeonggi-do and the city apartment in Gangnam-do.

In addition, while making a lot of money for credit business, the principal has paid 3 billion won as consolation money to the divorced wife, and the principal has been aware that there was a revenue of 6 million won or more per month.

In light of the circumstances where it is not good for the Defendant to take money from around March 2017, the Defendant was granted a loan of KRW 26 million from several lending companies introduced by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant would pay 10% or more interest for a month in which he received money and guarantee the principal.