The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The defendant does not pay a fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud of December 3, 2012, the Defendant did not make a statement or receive money from the victim as stated in the facts charged, with regard to the fraud of December 3, 2012.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two million won of fine) on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On December 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 600,00 from the victim who believed to be true, and acquired money from the victim who believed to be true, notwithstanding the absence of the intent or ability to repay, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim C at the G main office located in the Young-gu, Busan Metropolitan City, the Defendant provided that “I will receive money from the victim at the end of the judgment of H, etc. upon borrowing KRW 600,000,000.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground of the evidence indicated in its holding.

C. The burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial for a trial on the trial of the trial court is the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

(2) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant acquired 600,000 won from the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion pointing this out is justified.

(1) The defendant has consistently borrowed money from the defendant at an investigative agency on a temporary basis.