A. In fact, the Defendant did not make any false statement to the victims, such as “necessary money for stock investment,” and rather, the victims believed the horses of G having a close relationship with them or the horses of F actually used money and lent money to the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victims have consistently stated from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below that “the victims have lent money to the Defendant by referring to the Defendant and G having extended money to the victims while sustaining the financial power of the Defendant; ② G investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below stated that “the Defendant asked G to have borrowed money from the victim E” and “the Defendant would pay interest if he borrowed money from the victim E”; ③ the Defendant directly borrowed money from the victims, even if the victims directly borrowed money from the victims, such as the Defendant’s assertion, prior to the Defendant’s lending of money.

Even if G or F’s business was known, the main reason why the victims decided the Defendant who is not G or F as the debtor and lent money appears to have caused the victims to misjudgment the Defendant’s re-performance by deception as above, and ④ the victims cannot find any other reason to believe only the F’s business that the Defendant did not know if they were not accused of the Defendant’s re-performance, and to lend money. In light of the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victims as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case.