The guilty part shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of fraud is acquitted, respectively. The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A. Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (guilty part of the judgment of the lower court - Each fraud) is not a loan to the Defendant, but an investment was made (30 million won and KRW 1.5 million) or a substitute for attorney’s fees (3 million and KRW 1.5 million). Even if a survey loan was made, the Defendant continued to work and had ability to repay, and thus, the Defendant could not be deemed as deceiving the said victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the above part is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (not guilty part of the original judgment - each attempted fraud part) is clear that the Defendant had no money to be paid from the victim G and H, and that he had filed a false lawsuit against the said victims even though he was well aware of the fact.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above part is erroneous in misconception of facts.

C. The defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment (two years of suspended execution in June, and eight hours of community service) of the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. A. Around January 2012, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim’s office located in the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government I, stating that “At the end of the construction of the construction of the Dora in the present Kimhae-si K, the construction was completed three months after the completion of the construction. At that time, the Defendant received the construction payment from the owner of the building as a loan from the owner of the building as collateral and made the repayment of the construction payment.”

However, the defendant had no intention or ability to repay the above money even if he borrowed the money from the victim because he had already discontinued the above construction work from the owner, and there was no other property to receive the construction payment by substitute.

The defendant.