Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and eight months.

A. Error of facts (the fraud of the victim Q around January 15, 2016 in the lower judgment) demanded the Defendant to repay KRW 50 million out of the loan to the Defendant by mistake of facts (the fraud of the victim Q, around January 15, 2016 in the lower judgment). However, the Defendant: (a) obtained the victim Q from the Defendant, thereby allowing the Defendant to lend KRW 50 million to the Defendant.

However, at the time, the victim Q intended to introduce the BU to only introduce a person to lend money because it did not have money, and the BU paid KRW 50 million to the victim Q Q, and the victim Q paid KRW 50 million to the PO.

As such, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from BU, and the Defendant deceptioned the Victim Q.

or 50 million won is not received from the victim Q.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (the first instance court: 10 months of imprisonment, and the second instance court: 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, this Court tried by combining the appellate cases of the judgment of the court of first instance and the appellate cases of the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the offenses against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be punished with a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

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

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the second instance court and the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the victim Q, which are the following circumstances.