The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of fact, acquired only KRW 7 million from the victim Q Q.

Nevertheless, the defendant acquired 17 million won from the damaged person.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of factual misunderstanding, (i) introduced the victim and T from the investigative agency to T on December 18, 2002 through the first instance court, to T on December 18, 2002, and the Defendant received KRW 17 million from T as the advance payment, and the victim guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to T. However, the Defendant guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to pay KRW 17 million by subrogation to T.

A statement is made specifically and consistently, and the statement is consistent with each other, and even based on each entry of the cash custody certificate (No. 74 page 64 page 7 of the investigation record) and the advance payment receipt (No. 7 page 4 page 66 of the investigation record), the cash or the advance payment that the defendant keeps in custody is stated as “one million won” and “one hundred million won” and the Defendant received KRW 17 million from T.

In full view of the facts that the defendant is expected to work in SDa, while receiving KRW 17 million from T as a prepaid gold, and had the victim guarantee the defendant's obligation to borrow KRW 17 million for T, but the defendant does not work in SDa, thereby allowing the victim to perform the guarantee obligation, thereby having the victim obtain the financial profit equivalent to the same amount (B) [the defendant acquired the victim by defrauding KRW 7 million which is not KRW 17 million, not KRW 17 million.

The fact of deceitation itself is only a dispute over the amount of deceitation.