The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant entered into a contract for the production of promotional materials consisting of 138,257,000 promotional materials with the South Korean University (hereinafter “E”) at the time when the Defendant received an investment from the damaged party. In addition, the Daejeon Cultural Foundation, the children of social welfare foundation, and the Cheongnam-do Election Management Committee entered into a service contract with the Daejeon Cultural Foundation (hereinafter “E”), and there was a considerable amount of sales accordingly.

In other words, although the defendant tried to operate the business with the money invested by the injured party and to pay all the profits and principal to the injured party in the future, the defendant failed to pay the profits and principal because it did not make profits from the project differently from the plan.

Therefore, even if the defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, he did not have the intention or ability to repay it.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined the following facts and circumstances, namely, ① there was no property in its own name at the time of borrowing money from the injured party as stated in the crime of fraud, whereas the F, a spouse, was an apartment in the name of Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, and requested the injured party (a victim confirmed the copy of the above apartment register through the Defendant) to obtain a joint and several surety in the name of F for the purpose of securing his/her own claim. The Defendant issued the victim a loan certificate that forged the F’s joint and several surety column. If the injured party knew that he/she had forged the F’s joint and several surety column, it is obvious that he/she did not lend money to the Defendant. ② As seen earlier, it is evident that he/she did not grant money to the victim.