A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

Even if the defendant belongs to the victim at the time of borrowing, the defendant's intent of deception and fraud is recognized.

However, since the court below acquitted the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the first instance of the trial, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Bill of Indictment containing addition of the ancillary facts charged as stated in the following criminal history, and this Court permitted it.

As seen later, this Court found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary charges added, so the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant and the victim, even if based on the victim’s statement, were to go through around the first time in 2009 when the Defendant and the victim met; (b) at the distribution office operated by the victim’s ship; (c) at the time, the victim was frighting to money from the victim, such as cleaning, etc. or gambling; and (d) the victim was frighting to money from the victim as “understanding” in that place; and (e) the victim was also frighting to the victim, prior to lending the money as stated in the facts charged, he borrowed the amount of KRW 70 million from the Defendant with gambling money, etc.; and (e) the victim was frighting to 10% of the interest accrued while lending money to the Defendant.

In light of the facts stated and the details of passbook transactions submitted, the defendant and the victim from March 201 to January 14, 201 are 273,100,000 won from the victim.