A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the facts charged as to the fraud committed by a policeman on February 2013, 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant, within the office of the Police Officers C in February 2013, 2013, stated that “The Defendant would pay the Defendant a loan without delay if he/she would borrow money from a lending company to secure a joint and several surety in order to raise money from a lending company in personal use of money.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay the loan without fail due to the lack of certain income or assets specially owned by him/her at the time.

Nevertheless, on February 20, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 12 million in total from 3 million each of the loan extended to Dan Syn Syn Synish loan Co., Ltd., Ltd., Dan Lynish loan and E, respectively, around February 20, 2013. On August 29, 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million from Eynish Lynish loan to Ganish Lynish Co., Ltd., the Defendant had the victim jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation, thereby obtaining financial benefits equivalent to KRW 15 million in total.

As a result, a public prosecution seems to have been instituted on the premise that the defendant has fully acquired the above 15 million won property benefits.

2) However, from the investigative agency to the court of the trial at the trial, the victim: “The Defendant used KRW 9 million out of KRW 15 million from the loans received from each of the above lending companies around February 20, 2013, and the Defendant used KRW 6 million.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

In light of the above victim's statement, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant acquired all property profits exceeding KRW 9 million used by the defendant among KRW 15 million as stated in the above facts charged.

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, the court below held that the defendant 15 million won was the above.