A. Of the money received from the victim of mistake of facts, KRW 20 million on May 10, 2012 is not the name of the borrowed money, as stated in the instant facts charged, but rather the name of the land in which the victim owns is used as a expense for the appraisal and assessment of the land in which the victim owns, and it has been disbursed in accordance with the said name, so there is no deception nor intention of defraudation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant is against unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim paid the defendant the above KRW 20 million to obtain a loan certificate or a promissory note notarial deed, (ii) the personal taxi owned by the defendant as a security for transfer, and (iii) the defendant issued a loan certificate, etc. as necessary for the victim to borrow money from another person's body, but it is not acceptable in itself by social norms, but in full view of the fact that the defendant did not present objective grounds to clarify that the appraisal cost was requested or disbursed as the appraisal cost, even though it was merely a nominal appraisal cost, as seen earlier, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant acquired the above KRW 20 million under the pretext of loan. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant denies some of the crimes up to the judgment of the court of unfair sentencing, and does not reflect it, the amount of defraudation of this case reaches 25 million won and did not pay damages up to now, and the defendant has been punished for fraud three times.