All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (E of the facts charged in the instant case, 2017 order 2551)

With respect to each fraud among the facts charged in the case of the 2017 Highest 2551 case (excluding the part related to the fraud in the name of the victim C), since the victim C, who was a chain, voluntarily opened the cell phone and Internet phone to assist the defendant, the defendant did not deceiving the victim C about his/her ability to repay or intent, and even if the defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the facts charged in the case e, 2017 order 2551)

In light of the fact that, at the time of lending vehicles under the victim’s name, the Defendant had no intent to repay and had no ability to repay, and the circumstance that repair expenses or resting expenses, etc. would be sufficiently anticipated in light of the empirical rule in the course of lending vehicles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no proof of criminal facts, even though the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victim with the criminal intent of defraudation as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there was no proof of criminal facts.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. On February 17, 2017, the Defendant, based on the opening and use of the victim C mobile phone, changed the name of the Defendant after three months from the opening of the cell phone under the victim C’s name, since it is difficult for the Defendant to open the mobile phone under his/her own name.