The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, as stated in the List of Crimes Nos. 1 through 5 in the lower judgment, borrowed money from the injured party for the purpose of gambling, and thus, did not deceiving the injured party regarding the receipt and operation of “D cafeteria”. At the time of borrowing money from the injured party, the parent of the Defendant was sufficiently able to repay the money, and the injured party was also able to lend money with the belief of the parent of the Defendant, not the Defendant’s own ability, and the Defendant actually repaid all the above money, and thus, there was an intention to deception the Defendant.

Although it cannot be seen otherwise, the Defendant acquired the money recorded in the above crime from the injured party.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The argument is asserted.

B. The criminal defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. This part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the sequence 1 to 5 of the list of crimes listed in the annexed facts charged is as follows.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

(c)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below's judgment and the court below's judgment, all of the circumstances stated by the court below are recognized.

In addition, the Defendant paid approximately KRW 225 million to the victim with the sales price of the Defendant’s real estate owned by his father at the investigative agency, and the remainder of the loan, as of October 2014, was KRW 50 million.

The statement is that this is consistent with the total amount of KRW 50,60,000,000,000 in this part of the facts charged. ② At the time of borrowing KRW 20,000 from the injured party around June 13, 2013, the Defendant used the bonds to repay the above bonds by means of so-called “return prevention,” and ③ other reasons.