A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) The instant loan by the Ft Savings Bank to the Defendant is a credit loan, which is not an important element for the decision on lending, and even if there were some details different from the facts in the documents submitted by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed a deceptive act. (b) Although the nominal owner Nos. 7 through 12 of the attached Table of the judgment of the court below stated the amount higher than the actual amount paid as the prepaid payment in the documents as the employees of the Defendant’s operating entertainment tavern, it cannot be deemed that the aforementioned prepaid payment documents were written falsely because the prepaid payment as the amount of the obligation to the proprietor was de facto dynamic each month; and (c) there is no relation with the execution of the loan since the prepaid payment documents No. 13 through 17 of the above list were made after the execution of the loan, it cannot be deemed that there was a causal relation between the prepaid payment documents submitted by the Defendant and the instant loan documents, and (c) in the situation of the operation of the Defendant’s entertainment tavern, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not interfere with the payment of interest or principal of the instant loan.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, as to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no deception.