A. Defendant (1) A person who borrows KRW 3 million from the victim H on April 16, 2014, from the victim H, is not the Defendant but the employee P, and the Defendant only played a role to transfer the said money.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it cannot be deemed that the crime of fraud of Paragraph 2-B

(2) The punishment of six months of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the victim H stated that this part of the money was lent by the police to the defendant as necessary (No. 158 of the investigation records No. 2015, No. 54 of the investigation records No. 2015) and the defendant stated that this part of the money was paid monthly by the prosecutor's office (No. 160 of the investigation records No. 160 of the above investigation records) and that all the facts charged in this case were led to the confession of all the facts charged in the court below, the court below can sufficiently recognize that the victim borrowed this part of money from the victim is the defendant, and the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged as long as it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim did not have the intent or ability to repay the money from the victim at the time of the court below, and there is an error of law by

subsection (b) of this section.

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

B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and direct determination of the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first trial, and the first deliberation sentencing is made.