All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part in the judgment of the court below) the victim’s specific and consistent statement of damage, the defendant’s partial statement corresponding thereto, and the contents and preparation of a quasi-loan certificate prepared by the victim by clarifying the change of the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles of fraud.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (not guilty portion in the judgment below)

A. A. A summary of the facts charged 1) The Defendant, around August 2015, through F Co., Ltd., Ltd., E, and the Defendant, despite having no intent or ability to repay money from the injured party due to the economic failure as stated in the lower judgment, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, such as Paragraph 1 of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant, by making a false statement to the effect that “on October 21, 2015, if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million, it would be repaid by not later than October 20, 2015.” The Defendant, around August 20, 2015, by forcing the injured party to transfer KRW 97 million to N, the Defendant’s creditor, KRW 97 million,00,000,00.

2) On December 31, 2015, the Defendant, at a place where it is difficult to know on or around December 31, 2015, received money from the victimized person, as described in the foregoing paragraph 1, by deceiving the victim to the effect that “If the Defendant borrowed money from the victimized person, he/she would make a lump sum repayment of the previous borrowed money to the Defendant’s bank account, by posting the phone to the effect that “if he/she borrowed more than 3 million won, then he/she would make a lump sum repayment of the previous borrowed money.”

3) The Defendant, at a place where it is difficult to know on January 9, 2016, and even if he/she borrows money from the damaged person as provided in the foregoing paragraph 1, he/she shall have the intent or ability to repay the money.