The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the Defendant’s 350 million won, which the Defendant received from the victim D, is not a part of the KRW 500 million agreed to receive an investment under the pretext of acquiring the shares of the Indian Corporation, nor a cost for the entry of a hotel line or the acquisition of a wood plant. Therefore, the victim is not deceiving, such as the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant, on June 2009, tried to acquire a timber plant in the first place on the Chinese Haice and Man-ri Frane, and the victim D with “The hotel te with the Chinese friendly job offering in China,” and to take over a timber plant.

E entered into a contract for 20,000,000 won of investment money invested by E. 20,000 won of timber plant.

Even if only a timber factory of this size is operated in China, it can live in a life.

The resources and growth of China are growing, regardless of whether it is a country of China or not.

As a result, there is an investment in a state where the balance of a timber plant is not yet paid, it cannot be said that the investment is made under the same condition as E, because it has already been made in a large number of days, and when the hotel construction works, the pre-paid construction cost and the fund for acquiring a timber plant enter the amount of KRW 600 million, and if an investment is made only KRW 450 million, the profits will be paid and 30% of the shares will be paid.

The hotel work will begin immediately, and no way is the construction period of one year, and the amount of investment will be recovered within the limit of one year, and the return on investment will be guaranteed to the maximum of 40%.

“A false representation was made.”

However, even if the Defendant received the above investment money from the injured party, it was thought that it would be used for personal purposes, such as using it as the family's living cost in Korea and repaying debts, and in the case of F Limited Companies operated by the Defendant (hereinafter "F"), the hotel at the time.