The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three months for the crimes set forth in Articles 1 through 4.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, the part of the judgment below’s acquittal), the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim on July 5, 2012, thereby deceiving the victim and defrauding the victim KRW 10 million from the victim can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to Defendant 1’s mistake of fact (guilty part of the judgment of the court below) ① fraud with respect to KRW 40 million on December 31, 2007, and fraud with respect to KRW 50 million on January 16, 2008, the above money was borrowed from the damaged person who was not the Defendant, and the amount borrowed from the victim thereafter was fully repaid to the victim.

② As to the fraud of KRW 20 million on January 31, 2008 and the fraud of KRW 20 million on September 2, 2009, the Defendant paid the said money in full.

③ As to the fraud of KRW 80 million on July 2, 2013, the Defendant had the ability to pay the said money on account of the existence of a claim to receive from the KNND.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (as indicated in its holding, 1 to 4: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months, and 5: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the recognition of facts should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree of conviction as above, even if the prosecutor’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unwritten, and there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent, it should be determined in the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). The lower court.