A. Error 1) The Defendant is the victim G with a total of KRW 15 million around November 29, 201, and KRW 10 million around February 8, 201 (total of KRW 25 million; hereinafter “the amount of damage in this case”).

(2) After receiving the above money, the Defendant additionally lent KRW 10 million to the victim around April 28, 201, and KRW 200 million around May 3, 201, and KRW 300 million to the victim. On August 3, 2011, the victim received KRW 69 million on behalf of the Defendant from the I Co., Ltd. on the ground that the Defendant received KRW 69 million from the I Co., Ltd. on August 3, 201, and was appropriated for the payment of part of KRW 325 million in total, including the amount of damage in this case.

(2) The Defendant 1 paid the Defendant 1 with the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 paid the Defendant 1 with the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 paid the Defendant 1 with the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 paid the Defendant 1 with the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 paid the Defendant 1 with the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1 paid the Defendant 1 with the Defendant 1 and 2.

Therefore, the obligation to repay the damage amount of this case was fully repaid and extinguished.

In addition, the Defendant, on May 3, 201, prepared a loan certificate of KRW 600,000,000, including the amount of damage in this case, with respect to the obligation to borrow KRW 325,000,000,000 including the amount of damage in this case, and issued a certificate of beneficial rights with respect to the Defendant’s trust real estate as joint beneficiary (hereinafter “certificate of beneficial rights”) around January 11, 2012, the amount of damage in this case was sufficiently secured.

In full view of such various circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a crime of fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the victim, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, on the assertion that the victim had the ability to repay the damage amount of this case, are consistent.