B The appeal filed by the Prosecutor and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor are all dismissed.

A. Defendant B’s punishment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to Defendant B’s conflict), U is a person closely related to the Defendant, so U’s statement is without credibility; the victim’s statement is concrete and its credibility is high; at the time of the instant crime, the victim’s loaning KRW 4 million and paid KRW 3.66 million out of them to the Defendant as commission cannot be understood formally, and the Defendant filed a false complaint against the victim after the instant case.

In light of the fact that the injured party does not resist and instead requests the return of money to the defendant, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's assertion is not reliable, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court (2 years of suspended execution of six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and one year of imprisonment with prison labor) that is unfair as it is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts (as to Defendant B’s attack)

A. The lower court determined that ① the victim submitted a written complaint to the Defendant, and entered the gist of the complaint in a loan fraud rather than putting the gist of the complaint, and subsequently, the Defendant’s statements to the same effect as the Defendant’s woman-friendly Gu and the Defendant’s statement to the same effect, ② the

U is the police that there was a trial cost with regard to withdrawal of money between the defendant and the victim.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant did not take a bath or intimidation, and the victim stated that he/she explicitly expressed his/her intention of refusal, etc., he/she acquitted him/her of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the victim's statements in investigation agencies and courts are difficult to believe.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, which is different from the above circumstances presented by the court below for the above judgment.