The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The court below found the victim E guilty of fraud among the facts charged in this case, and found the victim E guilty of fraud in relation to the fraud listed in the No. 1 through No. 5 of the judgment below against the victim E in the reasoning of the judgment below. The prosecutor did not appeal as to the part of the above acquittal.

Pursuant to the principle of non-performance of appeal (Article 342(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), the part of innocence on the ground as well as the part of acquittal was transferred to this court, but this part has already been excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, the aforementioned part of innocence on the ground is subject to the conclusion of the judgment below and the decision is not again made

2. Grounds for appeal (the factual error and the unreasonable sentencing)

A. There is no fact that the defendant had the ability to repay the money to the victims at the time of lending the money to the victims, and there is no fact that the victim was deceiving about the ability to repay.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court, however, it is difficult to view that there was a deception or intent in terms of the purpose of the loan, but it was difficult for the Defendant to hold soup to the victims, such as holding soup to F, and it was also possible to recognize the fact that the victim E had expressed an intent to offer part of the real estate as security. At least from January 201, 2016, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, the Defendant did not have sufficient means to repay the loan from the victims within a reasonable period of time, and the Defendant also knew that the repayment of the loan could be impossible unless there was a need to do so.