A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The 8-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion), the Defendant is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant did not intend to return the deposit to the victim from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to deception, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of 8 months in imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On May 26, 2017, the summary of the facts charged stated in this part of the facts charged stated as follows: “The Defendant said that, in the Defendant’s residence in the racing-si L on May 26, 2017, the victim D, through telephone conversations and interscopic M, “The Defendant is a vehicle in his possession, ENA-si vehicle is responsible, the deposit is transferred, the vehicle is transferred, the deposit is transferred, and the deposit is returned later.”

However, in fact, the above vehicle was temporarily borrowed from the J, which is not a vehicle that may be owned or responsible by the defendant, and was a vehicle owned by the J that should be immediately returned to him. At that time, the defendant was liable to pay approximately KRW 44 million, such as card payments, loan, etc. without any particular revenue, and the defendant did not have the intent or ability to return it thereafter even if he received the deposit from the injured party.

The Defendant received 4,920,000 won in the name of deposit from the damaged party to the account in W on the same day.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s deception stated in this part of the facts charged, and ① “The instant vehicle is not a vehicle owned or liable to be owned by the Defendant, but a vehicle from the J of Doin.”