The third part of the judgment is reversed.

A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months against the third offense in which he decides the defendant.

A. (1) The Defendant did not borrow money from S, and the Defendant did not borrow money from O, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there was an error of misapprehending the facts.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (no. 1 and No. 2 of the original judgment) is too unreasonable and unfair. (No. 10 months of imprisonment and no. 3 of the original judgment)

B. In light of the AE’s statement that the assumption that a prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts AC transferred AB to the Defendant that only received only KRW 10 million out of the transfer price of the company from the Defendant, and only received KRW 50 million among the transfer price of the company from the Defendant, the Defendant granted a blank Promissory Notes to the Defendant constitutes an excessive non-afforcing, and that the Defendant had talked about the limitation of the right to supplement the said Promissory Notes to the AF that delivered the promissory Notes to the Defendant, it is sufficiently recognized that AF had talked about the limit of the right to supplement the said Promissory Notes. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of all of the facts charged in the instant case, and there was an error of misapprehending the facts.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant as to the amendment of the indictment on the facts charged in the indictment No. 3 in the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content of changing the facts charged on the crime No. 3 in the judgment of the court below as follows. Since this court permitted this, this part of the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

[Revised Facts charged] The Defendant is a person engaged in food material distribution business in the name of “M” and “N” in the Hanam-si L around March 201.

M. M. operated by the defendant.