A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. As to the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts), the Defendant only borrowed from the injured party only the name of the business operator for D (hereinafter “the instant scambling”) in the name of the business operator for D (hereinafter “the instant scambling”), and did not acquire money from the victim as stated in the facts charged while carrying on the scambling business with the victim, as stated in the facts charged.

The money that the defendant received from the injured party is the removal of the studio in Q Q located in Seocheon-si and the cost of construction related to the interior project in Daejeon Rurter.

B. As to the forgery and the uttering of Dol Private Document (the part on the “agreement and execution note,” and the “transfer note of business”), the victim lent only the name of the business operator for the scambling business to the Defendant, and the actual operator of the scamba, which was the Defendant, so the Defendant, at the time of the lending of the name, prepared the instant agreement and execution statement and the transfer note with the consent of the victim for the confirmation of such legal relationship. However, each of the above documents

The judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake of facts.

나. 검사( 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해, 양형 부당) ⑴ 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 주장 ㈎ 사기의 점에 대하여( 원심 판시 별지 목록 순번 4 내지 15 부분) 피고인은 피씨방 운영으로 인한 수익금을 피해자에게 지급할 의사나 능력이 없었음에도 피해자에게 여름 성수기가 되면 피씨방 운영으로 인한 수익금을 지급할 수 있을 것처럼 기망해 피해 자로부터 운영자금 명목의 돈을 편취하였다.

It was not a critical reason that the victim's receipt of the profits from the operation of the Sception was not a decision-making reason.

Even if the victim had an intention not to receive any profit from the victim;

(2) if any.