A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts only borrowed money from E and F that he had knowledge of the fact that he did not have any influence on the refluence of refluence, such as “I own the debate of white mags in Seosan,” and that he did not request G to lend money by requesting G specialized English schools in Songpa-gu Seoul to extend the scope of a private teaching institute. The Defendant was aware of the fact that E and F did not have any influence on the management or expansion of the private teaching institute. Thus, the judgment of the court below that recognized the above facts, which recognized the above facts, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant made a statement to the effect that E and F would pay interest on the second part of a month if the defendant lent money to E and F because it is necessary to expand the private teaching institute in Gangnam, and the defendant displayed JA building that E and F had worked as security guards, and made the statement to the effect that he is a private teaching institute. However, the defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, received 1050,000 won monthly salary and was registered in bad credit standing, and had a considerable amount of debt. However, although the defendant did not know that he borrowed and delivered money from E and F, E and F did not have any other property except for the monthly salary received for each month, and there was no material that the defendant did not submit any material about his personal information claimed by the defendant. According to the above facts, the defendant could be acknowledged by deceiving the above facts.