The defendant shall be sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of the decision of the court below.

A. The Defendant did not receive a statement of mistake of facts (i.e., par value 50 million won per unit from the victim E on September 2007, 2007).

B. In order to discount the face value of the Promissory Notes (hereinafter referred to as the “ Promissory Notes”) from the victim E, the Defendant changed the face value of the said Promissory Notes to KRW 34 million by telephone with the consent of the said victim and received KRW 30 million with the face value of the said Promissory Notes by delivering the said Promissory Notes to the said victim K, so there is no fact that the instant Promissory Notes did not change the said Promissory Notes and 30 million by deceiving the said victim K. Therefore, there is no fact that the said Promissory Notes was obtained by deceiving the said KRW 30 million.

(1) At the time of February 10, 2010, the defendant received 19 million won from the victim E and transferred it to AB to pay to the victim E and the defendant in the same business relationship, and the defendant did not personally borrow 19 million won from the victim E.

• The Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the loan at the time of purchasing the RBW vehicle, but at least three days after the purchase, the vehicle was delivered to the external repair business entity in accordance with the direction of X, X, which was sold and with the intention to exchange the vehicle after the purchase. Since X was aware that X would exchange the vehicle on another lane, the Defendant did not pay the loan to the above vehicle with the knowledge that X would be a loan due to payment of X, there was no intention to commit fraud.

(v) When the Defendant purchased a U Ecoo vehicle in the name of the victim T (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), he had the victim take office as the representative of “AE”, and tried to transfer the name of the instant vehicle in the name of “AE”. The Defendant merely did not transfer the name of the vehicle because the victim could not be the representative of the corporation due to the victim’s mistake and did not succeed to the loan, and only did he did not transfer the name of the vehicle from the beginning.