The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant of mistake of facts was anticipated to be promptly released at the detention house at the time of the instant case, and was involved in the procedure of discounting the certificate of deposit but failed to repay the borrowed money to the victim on the wind that is not released, and there was no intention to intentionally approach the victim to acquire 60 million won.

In addition, since the victim was aware of all these circumstances, and it was clearly notified that the victim would use the borrowed money as the defendant's defense cost and the agreed amount, the victim could not be deemed to have been accused.

In addition, the court below found the defendant guilty on the premise that the defendant had a business entity operated at the time and had certain income, and the amount of KRW 800 million in the related case was acquitted as normal investment money. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant had no intent and ability to repay 1.4 billion won.

B. The Defendant, on July 11, 2012, was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and ten months with labor for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on July 11, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 13, 2012. Since the instant crime is concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower court, which did not review the grounds for reduction and exemption even though it should be voluntarily reduced or exempted under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, did not

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the witness B and E’s testimony on the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant mentioned 60 million won as to negotiable certificates at the time when the victim borrowed 60 million won from the victim. While the loan certificate and agreement of this case contain contents related to the withdrawal of negotiable certificates, some of the defendant’s negotiable certificates correspond to the defendant’s defense, the court below and the court below duly adopted and investigated them.