The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts (the fraud against the RR by the victim), the specific amount of damage stated in the facts charged was erroneous in relation to the fraud of the RR by the victim.

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content of changing the facts charged against the victim R as stated in the facts charged subsequent to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the above part and the other criminal facts corresponding to the substantive concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act guilty and sentenced the defendant to a single punishment can no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the changed facts charged despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, and this is examined below.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

① Around 2003, the Defendant was operating a school meal service company with D, which is a mutual school meal service company. However, at the time of the acquisition, the outstanding amount was in a state of 200 million won, and the outstanding amount was generated in an amount of KRW 100 million each year, and the bank loan was in excess of its liabilities such as KRW 50 million.

② On January 2006, the Defendant stated that Q would pay the price for the following month to the victims R who operated Q, “on the following month if the Defendant supplied various camping tickets.” The Defendant from January 2006 to December.