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

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

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant and the Victim E (hereinafter “instant car page”) indicated in the facts charged are as follows: (a) misunderstanding of facts; (b) defraudation of the name of the opening of the car page business fund and defraudation of the name of the operation fund of the car page (defendant 1 and 2).

(2) The Defendant agreed to engage in a partnership business and received money from the victim who is another partner as a contribution under the partnership business contract, and the Defendant did not borrow money from the victim, and thus, the crime of fraud is not established. (2) The Defendant’s fraud due to the fraudulentation of the loan under the name of the victim (paragraph (3) of the charge of fraud) is using 10 million won from the victim with the consent of the victim who is the Kafin partner of the instant case and with the consent of the victim.

In addition, since the defendant has paid interest on loans to the Seogsan Credit Union by receiving KRW 8,250,000 from the victim in the name of repayment of interest, etc., it is not a crime of fraud against the defendant.

Moreover, there is no fact that the defendant conspireds with C to commit fraud.

3) Fraud by defraudation in the name of the victim’s mother’s residential construction cost (Article 4 of the Public Prosecution) is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 2.7 million from the victim as the construction cost of the victim’s mother’s residential residence. However, since the Defendant obtained the victim’s consent and used the said money for the instant car page operation fund, etc. during the delay in the construction due to inevitable circumstances, etc., it is not a crime of fraud. Furthermore, there is no fact that the Defendant has conspiredd to commit the crime with C. Furthermore, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 6 million from the victim for the purpose of changing the victim’s operation, coffee repair work and use (Article 5 of the Public Prosecution). However, the Defendant was found later that the Defendant did not actually perform the victim’s artificial construction, and that the Defendant did not incur any expense for changing the purpose of use.