All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) the Defendant received a remittance of KRW 17.78 million from the victim from May 2007 to September 2008; (b) obtained a loan of KRW 30 million in the victim’s name; and (c) paid KRW 29 million with a credit card under the victim’s name to pay KRW 29 million to the victim’s total amount of KRW 16,6788,000; (d) however, the Defendant paid KRW 136,467,347 out of the payment until November 208; and (e) obtained income exceeding KRW 100,000 per annum as the representative of the car E agency; and (e) was already aware of the fact that the victim is wife and child. Accordingly, the Defendant did not acquire money by deceiving the victim as if the victim were married with the victim without intent or ability to repay. 2) An unjust sentencing is unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence of the assertion of mistake of facts as follows: ① The victim made a consistent statement that “the defendant has introduced the defendant himself as the director of the agency of the car E agency of the victim and married him, so that the defendant may obtain a loan of KRW 30 million in the name of the victim, let the defendant use the loan of KRW 30 million in the name of the victim, settle the amount of KRW 29 million in the modern card of the victim, and the defendant lent KRW 16,410,000 in total to the defendant,” and there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement. ② The victim could not find any circumstance to suspect the credibility of the statement. ② The victim became aware of the defendant around May 206 and became a problem in dealing with the vehicle accident of the victim, and obtained a loan of KRW 30,000 in the name of the defendant as a security, and if the defendant has a spouse, he could not obtain a loan even if he was given a loan.