A. There was no misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim E, and that the Defendant would pay the principal three months after the borrowing of KRW 8 million from the victim F.

In addition, at the time of borrowing, the defendant's debt was merely KRW 10 million, and the defendant was in bad credit standing, so the creditor has renounced the debt collection and actually did not have the debt, and if the job placement service is well operated, the above loan was attempted to be repaid, and there was no intention to acquire it.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim E as stated in the judgment of the court below, thereby deceiving the victim E, and thereby, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

(1) On February 2014, the victim consistently planned from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to open a job placement office from the defendant, and if the victim borrowed KRW 8 million under the name of the deposit, he would be able to pay the principal more than three months and borrowed KRW 8 million to the defendant. In addition, according to the defendant's request, the victim borrowed KRW 18.5 million in total four times as stated in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below.

Dol F heard the opinion that she would borrow money from the defendant in the court of original instance, and introduced the victim to the defendant, and the victim is decided by the court of original instance.