The defendant shall be held.

A. Of the judgment below of the court below, the defendant asserts the misapprehension of the legal principle as to acquittal portion by deceiving G with a high interest on over 200 occasions and borrowing money from G with a 200 or more occasions. Since the target of the crime and the method of the crime are identical, and the identity of the criminal intent can be recognized, the "part of the exemption from punishment and the part of the indictment" in the judgment below constitutes a single comprehensive crime. Therefore, it is clear that the statute of limitations as to this part of the judgment below is a clerical error in the completion date of this part of the crime as stated in the written indictment on August 26, 2006, which is the final crime time.

Since the statute of limitations was instituted on July 8, 2013, which was before August 25, 2013, which was the expiration date of the statute of limitations, it was not completed, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it constitutes a case where the statute of limitations has expired as to the attached list of crimes, saw it as a substantive concurrent crime, and that it constitutes a case where the statute of limitations expired, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty, although the fact that the defendant received the money stated in the facts charged from C and G from the defendant (the part of the conviction in the original judgment) is not a criminal intent to acquire it at the time, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes except the crimes of No. 2-A of the original decision) of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion (the acquittal part of the original judgment)

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to pay the principal and interest, even if he borrowed money from the victim G because there is no possibility of receiving any profit by investing in tinsan Development or the import household store, with the Plaintiff’s intent to pay the principal and interest, from August 30, 202.