A. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) ① The name of the E business registration store for the well-known clothing sales store in the Defendant’s operation is indicated as “E”, which is the name of the prosecutor’s office instituted by the prosecution for the sake of V or convenience (hereinafter “instant store”).

In light of the fact that the value of the scenic items kept in the company was 6 to 70 million won, ② on August 16, 201, the victim G was offered 50 million won as security, ③ Q, R, S, T, U, etc. with approximately KRW 550 million, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have had no intent and ability to repay the borrowed amount at the time of the instant crime. ② The actual operator of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) is the Defendant; ② the establishment funds of F was also raised by the Defendant; ③ the Defendant was also sold in mobile or online; ④ the Defendant sold the printed items imported from the EU; ④ the Defendant was sold in mobile or online; ④ the Defendant had been in custody of the inventory items of the EF, and the Defendant could not be deemed to have been aware of the fact that part of the EF had actually been used to sell the borrowed items.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances and facts recognized by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant by deceiving the victims as stated in the facts charged, and thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is justified.