The guilty portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

(e).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud on December 16, 2015 against the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, and the misunderstanding of sentencing (A) with respect to the fraud of the victim C on December 16, 2015, the victim C lent money to the Defendant as security even if the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the use at the time, so it cannot be readily concluded that the victim C did not lend money if the victim C knew of the real use as set out in the lower judgment, and that the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay.

(B) As to the fraud against the victim I, the Defendant did not deceiving the use of the borrowed money, nor had the intent to repay and had the ability to repay.

(C) The sentence of the lower court No. 1 (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(2) In full view of the prosecutor’s mistake of facts, the police’s improper assertion of sentencing (A) and the victim’s statement, etc., KRW 300 million stated in the instant funding agreement is eitherO or R, and therefore, the name of the instant funding agreement is the Defendant.

Even if the defendant was entitled to dispose of the investment money,

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention to repay and the ability to repay.

(B) The sentence of the lower court No. 1 (6 months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The 2nd judgment of the court below (the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing)’s 2nd judgment (the imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment of the lower court on the Defendant’s allegation of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine as to the first instance judgment

A. On December 16, 2015, the charge of fraud against the victim C (i) the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the principal to the victim C and divide the profits into five:5 if he/she borrowed the purchase fund to invest in the national design share by the end of December, 2015,” at the Sejong Special Self-Governing City D and the Jeju office No. 405 (State Office) on December 16, 2015.”

The defendant is the same day as the injured party who falls under the above false statement.