The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and five months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of the lower judgment’s judgment, the facts charged in the instant case No. 1666 against Defendant 1 are as follows: (a) the victim D, H, and I gave up each of the Defendant each of the charges; (b) the victim D, H, and I paid KRW 138 million; and (c) KRW 120 million; and (d) the amount actually received from the victims differs from the amount actually received; and (e) the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact regarding the amount actually received by the victims, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① The victim D was the principal of KRW 37 million, which the Defendant received from the Defendant and again delivered to the Defendant. As such, the victim D actually delivered the amount to the Defendant is the total of KRW 100 million.

② Unlike as indicated in attached Table No. 13, Aug. 5, 2013, the victim H paid only KRW 10 million to the Defendant on August 5, 2013. However, at the time, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate of KRW 20 million, including interest KRW 10 million that the Defendant shall pay to the victim H.

(3) A victim I was paid eight million won out of the principal by the Defendant.

2) The punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The form of the lower judgment by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a case where the money acquired through deception is treated as re-investment only as a new wound without actually receiving real money after taking a property legal principle, the amount of such re-investment shall be excluded from the sum of the amount acquired through deception (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1707, Jul. 13, 2001, etc.). In addition, in a case of fraud involving deception of property, if there is a property provision due to deception, the crime of fraud is established by itself by infringing the victim's property, and even if considerable consideration was paid or there was no damage to the victim's entire property, it does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud.