All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. (1) The amount borrowed by Defendant (1) by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is KRW 120 million in all. Of the criminal facts acknowledged by the court below, the sum of KRW 53 million in total, including the No. 3 (13 million), No. 7 (20 million), No. 8 (10 million), No. 9 (10 million) and No. 9 (10 million) among the criminal facts acknowledged by the court below.

Furthermore, the defendant provided sufficient security to the victim, and there was no intention to commit the crime of fraud in the actual process of construction.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor's (1) misunderstanding of facts, the victim's statement, and Q's confirmation statement, the defendant acquired all 250 million won from the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but the court below acquitted the defendant on the part of KRW 82 million on different premise. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) First of all, the victim of Sep. 2, 2006 KRW 13 million on September 2, 2006, KRW 20 million on January 8, 2007, and the same month.

9. It shall be considered that there has been a fact that delivery of KRW 10 million and KRW 10 million on the 26th of the same month.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e.,: (a) S who introduced the victim to the defendant was present at the court of the court below and prepared the loan certificate prepared on September 2, 2006 at the same place with the defendant; (b) the victim stated to the effect that it is a loan certificate for the delivery of KRW 13 million to the defendant by the victim; and (c) there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the above S's statement; and (b) the defendant was the same in the prosecutor'