The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of receiving an investment of KRW 1 billion from the injured party in order to produce a film, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, would have already secured the amount of KRW 4 billion out of KRW 5 billion in the production cost of the film, or paid a certain amount with the principal and the profit.

In other words, there is no deceiving the victim.

In addition, the victim's 1 billion won invested was used for the production of the film, and the defendant has invested more than 1.1 billion won in the production of the film and continued to produce the film by securing other investors.

Therefore, the defendant's intent to acquire money is not to receive investment money from the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, at the lower court, argued that the Defendant is similar to the allegation in this part.

As to this, the lower court explained the relevant legal doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004); and in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the victim was promoted by the Defendant.

It does not invest in the entire V business, but intends to obtain profits by investing only in the production of film “G” (hereinafter “the film of this case”) located in the Republic of Korea, which is located in Dokdo Island, and the Defendant received investment funds without notifying the victim of the progress of the production of the film of this case and the securing of other investment funds. Therefore, the Defendant may be recognized as the criminal intent of defraudation by the Defendant at least.

In this regard, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

A) The Defendant decided to produce the instant film in the process of attracting the Defendant’s investment. Around January 2013, the Defendant directed the film supervisor who works in the United States, and employed P as a producer around March 2013.