The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to Defendant 1’s guilty portion of KRW 15 million in the original judgment), the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the victim for the use of the Indonesian Institute and the extreme operational fund, and decided to substitute the repayment of the stone by using the scambling method or purchasing and supplying the stone in a less and less manner through the scambling method. Although the Defendant did not know the victim by deceiving the victim about the purpose of the borrowed money, repayment method, repayment period, etc. with the intent of defraudation, the lower court’s judgment convicting this part of the facts charged on the basis of the victim’s statement without credibility, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts. (2) The lower court’s decision that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is unreasonable because the Defendant’s punishment (two years of suspension of execution and eight hours of community service order for

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the acquitted portion of KRW 6.9 million at the time of the original trial), the Defendant consumed the whole amount of KRW 6.9 million for personal purposes, such as living expenses, immediately after receiving KRW 6.9 million from the victim, and the witness F of the lower court stated that the Defendant recommended the Defendant to file an application for solar-powered equipment and completed the construction within two months, and it is reasonable to presume that the Defendant had no intent to use the money for its original purpose from October 2012 since the discontinuance of the construction of the instant house from the time of the discontinuance of the construction of the Defendant’s lending of money to the Defendant, as described in this part of the facts charged, and to fully recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired it by deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, and acquired it under the pretext of borrowing money to use for solar-powered installation costs, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.