A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 merely obtained a loan from L through misunderstanding of facts and G, and on the grounds that there was no fact of deceiving G by deceiving G, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the fraud of G. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the legitimate evidence revealed in the case of mistake of facts, the prosecutor 1 was sufficient to acknowledge the facts charged of fraud against D, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) and violence. As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s judgment that acquitted this part of the facts charged was erroneous. The above sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the facts. Therefore, this part of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s allegation is without merit. (1) The Defendant stated that “The Defendant was granted KRW 10 million to L and received KRW 15 million from L,” and that “the Defendant was given a refund of KRW 15 million from L, which was given to L,” during the fifth trial of the lower court, on the fifth trial of the lower court, that “the Defendant was sent to L and received KRW 15 million from KRW 15 million from the amount loaned to L and received KRW 15 million from the amount of KRW 15 million from the amount of KRW 15 million from the amount of KRW 15 million from the above Defendant’s statement,” and that the Defendant was entitled to return the said KRW 20 million from the date of the lower judgment’s fifth trial.