Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who, on January 14, 2007, posted a marriage ceremony on and around January 14, 2007 while the Defendant came to know of the victim D and around 2006, was in a de facto de facto marital relationship without reporting the marriage.

After becoming aware of the victim, the Defendant borrowed 100 million won or more from the time of marriage, and did not pay the borrowed money. They did not pay the borrowed money and continued to receive money from the victim to use it as living expenses, etc.

Whether a party to a marriage has been married or divorced in the past, and whether a party to a marriage has a child is a very important factor in determining the other party’s intention to marry. In particular, the other party to a marriage is more important and more important in determining whether the other party to the marriage was married, and as if the other party did not have any her marriage nor has any awareness, the other party to the marriage, which eventually belongs to the victim, and eventually leads to marriage with the victim who is believed to be all the horses of the defendant, and the other party was unable to engage in normal marital life due to not entering his house after marriage or late entry at night, and the report of marriage was not made.

Around August 30, 2007, the Defendant committed the crime, “Around August 30, 2007, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim’s house located in Taean-gun E, Taean-gun, stating that “A vehicle needs to be replaced and that he will not be able to complete the payment.”