Part concerning the crime Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment shall be reversed.

The defendant is the second and third crimes of the judgment of the court below.

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 had no intention to defraud the money by deceiving the victim B (hereinafter “victim”) from the beginning. In particular, the lower court convicted the victim of all the facts charged of the instant case, even though the victim repaid the total amount of KRW 10 million on February 26, 2008. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) Each sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 1 through 3 in its holding, and 2 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes No. 4 in its holding) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. On February 26, 2008, the summary of the facts charged in this part 1) the Defendant’s fraud (the crime No. 1 of the judgment below) was committed on February 26, 2008. The Defendant, a residence of the victim, was located in the Busan Suwon-gu, Busan-gu, where the victim was awarded a successful bid for an auction, and the Defendant did not receive a large amount of profit if the Defendant paid the interest on bonds because it appears that he would have invested money with the use of bonds.

When it is possible to borrow money with high interest, there are a lot of profits.

If a person lends money with low interest, he/she will sell the goods awarded and pay interest to a certain extent.

“False speech was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, in fact, at the time, the defendant was a bad credit holder, monthly income of KRW 100,000,000, and there was no particular property, and the debt was exceeded KRW 100,000,000, and the investment in real estate auction was made by borrowing money without equity capital, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay money according to the agreement, even if he borrowed money from the injured party, because there was no proper profit.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received from his female, KRW 10 million as the borrowed money.

2) On February 29, 2008, the fraud was committed (the judgment of the court below).