All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

J was not supported by the loan because the injured party did not meet the requirements for the loan.

It was understood that KRW 20 million, which was received from the injured party, may be freely used, not on the pretext of expenses.

In the end, there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the defendant.

The punishment of the court below (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

In full view of the public prosecutor’s mistake (the part on Defendant B), the role of Defendant B and A, the victim’s statement, and the use of the damaged money, etc., the intent of Defendant B’s deception and fraud can be fully recognized.

Sentencing (the part against Defendant A) The sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

Defendant

A The Defendant alleged that the aforementioned facts were the same as the assertion of mistake in the facts, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail by providing a detailed statement on the determination.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below in light of the circumstances duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

(1) No materials may be submitted to find out that there was a successful case by arranging a loan from J by using his or her career or connection even before the defendant.

② The Defendant used a considerable portion of the instant business loan from the damaged party as the purchase cost of the land for the instant business, and repaid the said loan with the profits accrued from the said business.