The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim F.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Since each monetary transaction listed in No. 4 No. 1 or No. 12 of the annexed crime List No. 1 or No. 12 between the Defendant and the victim F was remitted money directly to the Defendant’s account at L request by the victim F, this is merely a monetary transaction between the Defendant and L, not a monetary transaction between the Defendant and the victim F. 2) The victim F, who did not have a deceptive act, merely lent money to the Defendant at his/her own judgment by lending the money to the Defendant and receiving interest at L, and there is no fraudulent act by the Defendant.

Furthermore, “Date of offence” in attached Table 4, as indicated in the “Date of Crime” column, is deemed to have started on March 15, 2017 between the Defendant and the Victim F, the period of the Defendant’s deception is deemed to be prior to March 15, 2017, and the Defendant’s statement in the victim F’s investigative agency in support thereof is difficult to believe, and otherwise, the Defendant deceptioned the Victim F before March 15, 2017.

There is no evidence to prove that the defendant had no intention to repay or sufficient ability to repay at that time.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 2017, 2017, the summary of the charges Nos. 4 1 through 10 in each fraud listed in the annexed Table Nos. 1 to 10, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F, stating, “The Defendant is engaged in a medical device sales business, and the purchase of a medical device with a heavy weight is 50% of the sales at Byung/wons. Moreover, the Defendant borrowed money to the head of Byung/won’s office with a high interest on the sales of the medical device.” The Defendant made an investment in the money set forth in the attached Table No. 4 1 to 10.

However, in fact, the defendant's financial right obligation at the time is equivalent to KRW 50 million, and the personal obligation is equivalent to KRW 300 million.