A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles knew that the defendant had no ability to pay money to the extent that he did not have a living expenses at the time of borrowing, and there was no means that the defendant would pay KRW 200 million of the deposit for the lease of apartment house at the time of borrowing. Although the defendant did not deceiving the ability to pay money and did not have the intent to commit fraud, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The punishment of the defendant sentenced by the court of unfair sentencing

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

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment with the content that the facts charged were modified as stated in the “A. modified facts charged” as stated in the following 3. The judgment of the court below was no longer maintained, as it was modified by this court’s permission.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. On November 20, 2017, the revised Defendant made a false statement to the victim C’s house located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, that “I would pay KRW 200,000,000 if I borrowed money because I would have no living cost.”

However, at the time, the Defendant owed approximately KRW 20,00,000 with a debt exceeding KRW 20,000, and the credit rating of KRW 10,00 is bad, and the Defendant had no right to the above deposit with the deposit with the parent’s deposit with the former deposit with the parent, which was not the Defendant, and at the time, income of KRW 2,20,000 from the Defendant.