A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles1) An external obligor of the instant loan is A, and without regard to the actual purpose of the loan, A is aware of the fact that he/she becomes the debtor, and thus, whether it constitutes deception and its intention should be determined based on A. However, A did not submit false documents necessary for the examination of loan from the victim savings bank, and the victims recognized and implemented the loan by examining the documents and recognizing the ability to repay to A. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that A had a deceptive act. A did not have the intention of deception because it applied for the loan with the intent to repay the loan in the event that C is unable to repay the loan, although A did not notify the victims of the fact that he/she is subject to concurrent loan, it is not recognized the causal relationship with the victim's disposal act, but it is difficult to recognize the functional control over the crime of fraud by A and C, which is merely a loan broker, and it is merely a aiding and abetting act.

B. The court below's decision on unreasonable sentencing: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order

2. Determination

A. 1. Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of mistake of facts, where there is a separate person using the real loan, and where the person under whose name the loan has been lent the name to the actual employer, in relation to the creditor, the nominal owner bears the obligation, and the nominal owner does not deviate from or be exempted from the debt relationship due to the reason that the actual employer is an employer, and thus, the determination of whether the intent

Creditors can not collect debts against the actual employer, and only collect debts against the nominal owner, so the actual employer's intent to repay is the same.