A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion), it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had an intention to obtain illegal acquisition of P-owned property.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of each fraud in the judgment of the court below) is that the Defendant received the same money as the facts charged under the pretext of investment in entertainment room from E, and did not deceiving the victim E, but did not intend to receive the payment of the money at the time of borrowing 5,000 won from P, but did not have any intent to receive the money by fraud. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts that the court below convicted the Defendant of each fraud in E and P. 2. The sentence (three years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in the erroneous determination of facts as to the non-guilty portion (thief) portion, the Defendant borrowed 5,500 won from Posito Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi, Po to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi, Po to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi to Posi.