All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts as indicated in the lower judgment. ① The Defendant did not mislead the victim’s M as stated in Section 1-A of the crime of the 2016 senior group 1021 (Joint 1) case (hereinafter “No. 1 denial part”), thereby deceiving the victim’s M, and thereby making the said victim’s total sum of KRW 100,40,000 (hereinafter “No. 1 loan”), and the first loan was granted by the said victim as the investment money for the Defendant’s business; ② the above victim was given as the investment money for the Defendant’s business; ② the crime of the 1-B case of the 201 senior group 201 (Joint 1021) case (hereinafter “No. 2 rejection part”) as indicated in the lower judgment, regardless of the purpose of the above business, and thereby, found the Defendant guilty of the part of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was consistent and specifically consistent with the part of 1, 2 denying, and the Defendant also sought to purchase three-story buildings adjacent to the O post office located in Busan Jung-gu at the time of receiving the 1, 2 loan, etc. from M, and to purchase three-story buildings adjacent to the O post office in Busan Jung-gu at the time of receiving the 1, 2 loan from M.

The Defendant stated in the lower judgment that, from the prosecution’s investigation of the 2016 senior group 183 case as indicated in the lower judgment’s judgment, the Defendant prevented so-called return, such as: (a) from around May 2014, the Defendant used the price for goods received from a new customer due to the aggravation of financial standing to purchase goods or to repay debts from the former

Taking into account the statement, it is found that all the parts of the denial No. 1 and 2 can be found guilty by each evidence in the holding of the court below.

The decision was determined.

2) The relevant legal doctrine is a crime of fraud.