The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, with regard to the fraud against the victim G, the Defendant: (a) determined that “a loan of KRW 4 million shall be made after one month, and the interest shall be paid in advance; and (b) KRW 3.4 million shall be remitted; (c) the Defendant was paid KRW 3.4 million in the name of G that is not a third party due to the circumstances in which the Defendant cannot be identified.”

Therefore, even though the defendant did not deception the victim G by deceiving the above 3.4 million won, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the Prosecutor changed the Defendant’s name of the crime into “thief,” and deleted “Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act” from the applicable provisions of the Act, and applied for amendments to an indictment with respect to a change in the name of the crime as stated in the facts charged under Article 2-b and (3) of the facts charged. Since this Court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the existence of the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. The following circumstances revealed by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, namely, the victim G, stated in the investigative agency that “The Defendant did not pay the registration fee at around 09:00 on March 25, 2020, and he would not pay 3.4 million won if he borrowed 3.4 million won, and the Defendant informed the same day to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.”