Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (A) does not receive money from the victim as the need for the operation fund of the clothing store at the time, or as the victim would subscribe to insurance in the name of the victim.

(B) After borrowing money from the victim, the clothing points that the Defendant operated are lost, and eventually, the Defendant was unable to pay the money to the victim, or the Defendant did not acquire money without the intention or ability to pay money from the beginning.

(C) Ultimately, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even though the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

Where there is an application for modification of a bill of indictment filed by a prosecutor who withdraws all the facts charged, among several substantially concurrent facts, and the purport of revoking the part of the indictment is clear, the application for cancellation of the prosecution shall be deemed to be cancellation of the prosecution, even if it does not meet the form of application for cancellation

(2) According to the records of this case, the prosecutor submitted a written application for changes in indictment to the effect that the prosecutor withdraws the facts charged as of May 11, 2007 on the fraud on March 11, 2007 at the lower court on the fourth trial of the same day, and the lower court permitted it on the fourth trial of the same day, and the part of the facts charged as of March 22, 198 are in substantive concurrence with the remaining facts charged, and thus the indictment should be deemed to have been revoked in accordance with the changes in indictment.

In such a case, the lower court revoked the public prosecution pursuant to Article 328(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.