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

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) The Defendant was found to have been in arrears due to the fact that the obligation was delayed due to the lack of economic difficulties on the part of a large retailer near the Smarket operated by the Defendant; (b) the Defendant transferred the obligation to return the lease deposit to the victim D; (c) the Defendant was merely transferred double claims due to the strong demand of other creditors; and (b) the victims other than the above D did not have the intent to obtain fraud against the victims since they merely attempted to defend the financial situation that is difficult to operate the fund, and thus, there was no intention to acquire the victims. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted all of the charges of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) The lower court, which sentenced the

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant had a debt of KRW 500 million at the time of the instant crime; (ii) on the other hand, the Defendant had a full deposit of KRW 50 million with the residence; and (iii) was a full repayment of the deposit of the house; and (iv) the Defendant stated that he/she had a full payment of the deposit of KRW 50 million with the residence; (iv) [No. 33, 65, 70, 70, 2, 2, 55, 57, 62, 64, 75, 137, 2012, and 50845, 20845 (hereinafter “No. 508455”).

(2) The victims stated that they were unaware of the above circumstances of the defendant (No. 1st, No. 9, No. 26 of the investigation records No. 7744), the defendant made a statement corresponding thereto (No. 70, No. 78, No. 50845 of the investigation records No. 77744), and the defendant made a statement corresponding thereto (No. 1st, No. 70, No. 78, No. 50845 of the investigation records), and ③ In the case of the 13th day of this case, the above guidance was broken immediately after the defendant received all amounts No. 1 and 2, and the case of the 15th day.