A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

A. The Defendant is merely receiving investment money as part of 500 million won as agreed upon by the victim C, and does not receive the borrowed money as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment.

As of November 8, 2010, “cash car certificate and sheet” and “cash car certificate and statement of repayment” as of October 1, 2010 are only prepared and sealed by the victim.

The defendant had the intention to repay and ability to repay.

Nevertheless, the court below found the victim's statement and E's statement in connection with the victim as they are, and found the guilty guilty of the facts charged, has erred in misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The prosecutor’s ex officio judgment following the amendment of the indictment by the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to delete the No. 4,7 of the annexed list of crimes among Paragraph (1) of the indictment against the defendant, and the court permitted this. As such, the court below recognized the crime as to Paragraph (1) of the facts charged in this case, and furthermore, the court below that sentenced the whole facts charged in this case by applying the provisions of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act to the whole facts charged in this case

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in detail, on the ground that the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal of this case, and on the ground that the lower court stated the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in detail.

In light of the circumstances properly explained by the court below, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances recognized by the oral argument at the court below is justified, and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.