The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the deception was made on June 25, 2014.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, at the time of the joint and several sureties for the Defendant’s obligation, the Defendant was not promised to repay the principal by the joint and several sureties on June 27, 2014 before September 2014, or on August 3, 2015 before September 3, 2015, and there is no intention and ability to repay the principal due to the Defendant’s sufficient financial capability.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. On June 25, 2014, as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s summary of the factory laboratory is urgently required at the victim D’s office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on June 25, 2014, and at the victim’s office located in Gangnam-gu, the victim is urgently required to bring about a sudden 30 million won.

In order to obtain a loan of 30 million won, you will repay the principal and pay interest before September 2014, 2014.

“.........”

However, in fact, the Defendant had already been in excess of the debt amounting to approximately KRW 63 million, and monthly income was gradually decreased, and there was no other property. Therefore, even if the Defendant received a loan, even before September 2014, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to refund the principal and to prevent the victim from actually performing the joint and several liability.

On June 27, 2014, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) caused the victim to obtain monetary benefits equivalent to KRW 10,000,000 on behalf of the victim; (c) the joint and several suretys for the loans of KRW 10,000 from the KON loan Co., Ltd.; (d) the joint and several suretys for the loans of KRW 10,000,000 from the KON loan; and (d) the joint and several suretys for the loans of KRW 10,000,000,000 from the D case loan; and (b) did not repay the above loans; and (d) on March 17, 2016, the Defendant acquired

B) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged based on the duly adopted evidence.