The defendant shall be sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime set forth in 1129 of the order of 2014.

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The Defendant borrowed KRW 94 million from the victim C and borrowed KRW 150 million from F under the joint and several guarantee of the victim C. However, there is no fact by deceiving the victim C as it is necessary to reach an agreement regarding the wife’s brain surgery expenses, medical expenses, and forest damage, and even if the construction of the housing site was suspended and the obligation was not repaid, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument is asserted.

2) Although the Defendant did not borrow money from the Victim H and the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Victim H, the lower court found otherwise guilty, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument is asserted.

B. The Defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the lower court (the crime No. 1129 of the order of 2014: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and imprisonment with prison labor for 2015 order 148: 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio judgment (as to the crime No. 1129 of the order of 2014 in the judgment of the court), the prosecutor requested the defendant to amend the bill of amendment to the indictment, which stated that "the defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was given KRW 84 million on September 24, 2008, and KRW 90 million on September 25, 2008 to the victim who was delivered KRW 60 million on September 25, 2008," among the facts charged by the prosecutor at the trial of the party, "the defendant was informed of the victim by deceiving him/her as such, and received KRW 84 million from him/her on September 24, 2008 from him/her," and the judgment of the court below became subject to the change by permitting it, and thus the judgment of the court is no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of determining the modified facts charged.

3. The part 1129 of the order of 2014, the ruling.