The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even if the defendant was able to perform the registration work through H certified judicial scrivener office, in light of the fact that the defendant did not have any particular ability at the time of the instant case, and he lent 20 million won to the branch in 10 days after he received money from the victim, the court below acquitted the victim of the primary facts charged of the instant case, despite the fact that it can be acknowledged that the defendant was unaware of the fact that he had by proxy a registration or by deceiving the victim to use for personal purposes from the beginning without intent to pay acquisition tax.

B. The Defendant (unfair imprisonment)’s punishment (five months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial for a prosecutor’s grounds for appeal, the conviction of a guilty shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the interest of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 200). The circumstances alleged by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant had the intention of defraudation from the beginning, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the primary facts charged in this case are difficult to be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt, and thus, the facts charged in this part should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts with the conclusion of

B. As to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, it is necessary to punish the Defendant who embezzled money using trust relationship with the victim, with severe punishment corresponding to the liability for the crime.

However, this case.