A. Defendant 1) deceiving a victim of misunderstanding of facts is L. The Defendant did not deceiving the victim and provided a clear explanation about the purpose of the borrowed money, and there was no conspiracy with L. Thus, the judgment below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant alleged the misunderstanding of the Defendant’s facts in the lower court’s trial. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the Defendant’s intent of deception and deception is recognized

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. In full view of all the factors indicated in the records of the instant case’s judgment on the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully taking into account all the circumstances, including the various sentencing grounds asserted by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment should be changed.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.