The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts, ① the lower court’s decision 2014, the lower court, Section 4444, was partially taken out with the consent of the victim D, and the sales proceeds were used for the operation of the factory, including personnel expenses.

② The lower court’s judgment 2014 High Court Decision 2014 J. 444 Fraud: The Defendant merely intended to borrow 2,200,000 won to the victim D by deceiving her wife, and the Defendant did not defraud the victim by deceiving the victim.

③ In the first instance judgment 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 412 Fraud: The Defendant was engaged in a business with the victim N and received living expenses from the injured party or borrowed them merely, and did not defraud the money by deceiving the injured party.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (seven months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In fact, Defendant 1, even though he did not have the ability to repay and pay, knew himself as he would be an operator of E and would engage in the same business with the victim N, thereby deceiving the victim’s money as stated in the facts charged, such as a partner’s money.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the lower court’s decision 2014 High Order 444 Section 4, the Defendant asserted that there was no intention of theft on the ground that the Defendant sold the processed wood cells, etc. in the Defendant’s factory, with the victim’s permission, or used the sales proceeds as the personnel expenses, expenses, and material costs of the factory workers, etc.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant supplied the wood batteries, etc. to the investigative agency without the involvement of the victim as stated in the facts charged, and recognized the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily used the price (No. 135-136 pages, 245-246 page of the investigation record), and ② the Defendant informed the victim of the fact later.