The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts, ① In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Victim F, it is unreasonable to punish the victim F as a crime of fraud by committing more than the amount borrowed from the said victim.

② With respect to each fraud against the victim H, I, and E, there was no intention to obtain fraud in light of the fact that the victims had been deceivingd and the principal and interest have been repaid almost every month.

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

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is sufficient if the deception as an action of fraud by the relevant legal doctrine is not necessarily required to be a false representation as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient if it is the fact that is the basis of judgment for the judgment to have the other party make an act of disposal of property that the actor wishes. In the case of borrowing money and lending money, if there is a relation that the other party would not have borrowed money if he had notified the real purpose, it shall be deemed that the deception, which is an action of fraud, has been committed (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2828, Feb. 27, 1996), and that part of the money was paid by the defrauded after the crime of fraud was established.

Even if such circumstance does not affect the nature of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7528, Sept. 24, 2009) (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7528, Sept. 24, 2009). 2), the lower court determined that the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation because the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay each of the money as stated in the judgment of the lower court at the time of borrowing it from the Victim F and H.

It is reasonable to view the victim I and E as the court below.