A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment below), the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant by deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby deceiving the victim of the borrowed amount of KRW 90 million.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution of six months’ imprisonment, and observation of protection) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine can be seen as not obtaining a loan amount of KRW 90 million, but ex post facto failure to repay the loan amount. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, by deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, by deceiving the victim, and by deceiving the victim amount of KRW 90 million.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted.

Examining the above judgment by comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified. Contrary to the prosecutor’s assertion, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the

subsection (b) of this section.

The prosecutor's factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant, taking into account the factors favorable to the Defendant.

In full view of all the circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in this Court, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of its discretion.

There is no special change in circumstances that can evaluate or change the sentence of the court below.

(b) other.