A. The defendant is merely a discount of the bill upon the G's request, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was guilty despite the fact that the defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intent to commit the crime of deception.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) G lent a promissory note to the Defendant in blank on September 27, 2007; and (ii) by using it, the Defendant urged the Defendant to repay the note on December 26, 2007, which is the settlement date of the promissory note; and (iii) the Defendant, at the discount, by accepting the payment of the note from G, if one of the said notes is further cut down.

Then, the police testified to the effect that “a bill or check was issued to the Defendant for discount,” and the content of the core part is consistent by stating to the effect that “a bill was given to the Defendant as soon as possible,” and the content of the bill was stated in G and the Defendant’s signature as of October 13, 2007 (Evidence No. 16 of the Evidence No. 16). (2) The fact that G said bill discount to the Defendant was stated to the effect that “a bill or check was issued to the Defendant,” but the purport is clearly to resolve the settlement of the bill that was lent to the Defendant rather than for the purpose of the principal’s financing. ③ The Defendant prepared a loan certificate in the name of the Defendant not for the victim, but for the victim, prepared and made a request for extension of the due date for the loan to the victim,” and the police stated that “A and the Defendant made a request for an extension of the due date for the loan to the victim.”