A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. Defendant 1) In light of various circumstances, including: (a) the party who borrowed money from the victim of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles; (b) the victim’s loan background; (c) the victim’s loan was sufficient to repay the Defendant at the time of July 2015; and (d) the Defendant’s failure to repay KRW 85 million due to the receipt of dividends from AB based on false collateral security and the erroneous legal advice of a certified judicial scrivener P; and (b) the Defendant’s failure to pay KRW 85 million due to the erroneous legal advice against the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that all of the Defendant’s deceptive act, deceptive act and the receipt of money; and (c) the proximate causal relation between the victim’s deceptive act, deceptive act and the money; and (d) it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s crime was proved to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles, which found the

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (10 months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of these evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that both the Defendant’s deception, proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s deception and the receipt of money, and the criminal intent

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1. The defendant appears to have been in charge of C’s passbook around July 2015, and the victim was unable to receive money even if he lent money to the defendant several times prior to the lending, and the defendant prepared a loan certificate in the name of C with C while the victim was aware of the defendant since 2010, while C first becomes aware of the introduction of the defendant around April 2015.