A. In fact, Defendant 1 did not make an investment in the Defendant, but only lent money with high interest; the victim did not actually pay the money specified in the investment agreement prepared with the Defendant; the Defendant promised to pay interest equivalent to 10% per month until September 2013, regardless of the existence of operating income; the victim was well aware that the economic situation of the Defendant was not good at the time of the first lending of money to the Defendant; the Defendant paid money to the victim more than the amount borrowed from the victim from around June 2010 to the year 2011; the Defendant’s business entity operated by the Defendant, considering the increase in sales in years 2012 and 2013 compared to the year 2010 and 2011, there was sufficient intent or ability to obtain the loan from the Defendant at the time of borrowing.

Although the court below cannot be seen, it erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the criminal intent of defraudation, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and four years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s improper sentencing: the lower court’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted to the same effect as the lower court.

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in its holding, the lower court: (a) paid part of the money borrowed from the injured party from around 2012 as interest on the money borrowed from the injured party to the injured party on the day or on the day and day without delay, to the injured party or the person designated by the injured party.

It is reasonable to see that such objection is true.