The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The Defendant, at the time of receiving money from the victim, was carrying out negotiations for the acquisition of the research institute with H, the president of the E. However, the said negotiations were only made on October 201, on the basis of the difference in the opinion on the method of payment of KRW 1 billion.

Even after receiving money from the victim, the Defendant continued to prepare for the acquisition of the research institute by leasing the office with the victim and employing employees.

Therefore, there is no fact that the victim is a victim as stated in the judgment of the court below because the defendant has the ability to accept the research institute.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit, and the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion of mistake of facts is not reasonable.

① On July 20, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 110 million from Victim C with the name of acquisition fund E (hereinafter referred to as “research institute”) from the victim C (hereinafter referred to as “research institute”) in the same year.

8. up to 22. Around November 201, the Defendant offered a written statement of understanding on the method of paying the funds acquired by the research institute to H, the president of the research institute, and only submitted it to H, the president of the research institute.

② At the time of borrowing money from the victim, the Defendant only first met H, the president of the research institute, and did not have any finalized contents regarding the acceptance of the research institute.

③ The victim took out a loan of KRW 100 million from a savings bank and delivered it to the Defendant. On the other hand, the Defendant was trying to take over the research institute's KRW 1 billion, and the Defendant tried to take over cash and his bonds or bonds owned by himself with modern Lao Bank's share certificates, but up to the trial.