All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant asked D to obtain a financial loan as security from Q-inju-si, Q-in-si (hereinafter “the scrapping paper of this case”) and subsequently, it became final and conclusive to grant a loan within D’s name.

On the other hand, it was requested D to lend money from a third party in order to repay the borrowed money with the loan. Therefore, the intent and ability to repay was available, and it is required to provide a beer and spher vehicle as security.

There is no false statement.

However, it is only impossible to repay the loan to the victim because the loan against security in an autoshion, which was being promoted, returned to the failure.

Therefore, there was the criminal intent of deceiving or deceiving the victim.

In spite of the fact that the court below was guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing 1) The lower court’s sentencing (one year and eight months of the suspension of execution, the observation of protection, and the community service order of 200 hours in one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) The above sentencing of the lower court by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel at the lower court asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title “as to the facts constituting the crime of No. 1 in the judgment”. In addition to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations by the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fraud or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fraud.