A. In relation to paragraph (1) of the facts charged, there was no intention to obtain fraud by repaying KRW 8 million out of the instant borrowed money. (2) In relation to paragraph (2) of the facts charged, the victim heard through the Defendant that he would pay KRW 150 million after the construction of the instant commercial building if he/she would pay a part of his/her debt to H’s bond business operator F, instead of paying a part of his/her debt to H, and trusted that he/she would deliver the proceeds of the instant commercial building 90 million to F through the Defendant.

Therefore, there was no deception, such as the entry of the instant facts charged.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below in relation to the crime of fraud in paragraph (1) of the facts charged are as follows: (i) although the defendant paid a total of KRW 8 million on four occasions from March 2007 to June 2007, the defendant did not have any supporting evidence (in relevant civil cases, such assertion was rejected), and rather, the amount of debts on the loan certificate (Evidence 9) dated May 30, 2007 prepared under the name of the defendant is still KRW 15 million. It is difficult to accept the above statement; (ii) the above loan was not repaid until the agreed due date; and (iii) the defendant still has not been repaid until the due date; and (iv) the defendant changed to the effect that the monthly income was KRW 4 million at the time of the prosecutorial investigation, but the loan in this case was still repaid, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant retired from office on June 20, 2007.