All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the fraud among the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, there is a person who had the capacity to pay and intent to pay the amount borrowed from the victims before April 2013, when the Defendant borrowed money from the victims and gave interest to other victims.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the above loan prior to the above point is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of sentence 1 and 2 of the Sentencing Decision (2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, 4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the lower court in the first and second instances, and this Court decided to jointly examine the above two appeals cases, and each of the offenses of the first and second appeals decisions in the first and second instances is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the judgment of the lower court in the first and second instances cannot be maintained any more.

In addition, the prosecutor filed an application for the modification of an indictment with the content that changes the fraudulent part of the charges No. 4695 of the 2014 Highest 4695 as stated in the following facts, and the subject of the judgment in this case was changed by this court's permission, so the judgment of the first instance court on each of the crimes in relation to the above fraud and the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of

B. The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, namely, the following circumstances that the Defendant, on May 9, 201, transferred 43 million won from the victim R to NN’s account on the same day, and then, remitted KRW 15 million to AD, the creditor of the same day, and transferred KRW 1.3 million to AD, the creditor of May 10, 201, respectively.