The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts, the court below which acquitted the defendant about this part of the loan amount of KRW 1,952,032 out of the loan amount of KRW 1,952,032 and KRW 4,952,032 out of the loan amount of KRW 3,00,000 per annum of the annexed crime list of the court below. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about this part is erroneous for misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged while explaining the grounds for judgment on the mistake of facts in detail.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the court below did not err in matters of mistake of facts, as alleged by the prosecutor, in the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the charges.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of trial-oriented and directness of unreasonable sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even in light of the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing specified in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too uneasible and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.