A. According to all the evidence of fact-misunderstanding, although the defendant was found to have received KRW 22,00,000 from E by deceiving E as stated in the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (2,00,000 won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On April 20, 201, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant was issued KRW 22,00,000,000 from E, by falsely speaking to the effect that, despite the bad credit standing, even if he/she borrowed money from E even though he/she had no intent or ability to repay it, the Defendant was unable to lend money from E as a bad credit standing, and that, “The Defendant may fully repay it if he/she took a bend to the extent that it would be better to import if he/she takes a bend to the extent that it would be better to import if he/she takes a bend to the extent that it would be more than two months.”

B. The lower court determined that: (a) E was present at the time of preparing the instant loan certificate; and (b) the Defendant and F, a married couple, offered KRW 22,00,000 at the same place where two parties request the lending of money.

However, at the time, F did not reach a maturity with E, and due to the limitation that the Defendant was unable to use his bank account under his own name as an bad credit holder, it appears that E was aware of such circumstances. ② The Defendant was aware of the fact that he was given knowledge of E around 2010 and received money through a bank account in the name of F, the husband, while engaging in monetary transactions, such as payment of fraternity deposits, receipt of fraternity deposits, and receipt of borrowed money. The Defendant was given money between E and E. It appears that it appears very unusually that he was given a loan certificate and received KRW 22,00,000 only with respect to the borrowed money in this case, and ③ the Defendant was a guidance.