All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part of the case in 2019Da605) merely stated that the Defendant borrowed money to D, and there was no deception on the purpose of money to the effect that “it is necessary as a deposit for selling stolen terms in TV home shopping.” Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this part is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. (ii) The judgment of the court of first instance (the imprisonment of two months and one year of suspension of execution, one year of suspension of execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of social service order) on the Defendant of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to this part of the facts charged, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant deceiving K on the method of import and distribution, the possibility of trust in the place of sale, the expertise of the Defendant’s long-term fishing business, etc. However, the judgment of the first instance court that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. 2) The judgment of the first instance court that acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime in this part of the facts charged, and that the sentence of the judgment of the court of unfair sentencing against the Defendant

2. In the first instance trial, the Defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court of the first instance rejected the Defendant’s assertion while explaining the grounds for judgment in the lower part of the “criminal facts” at the bottom of the “criminal facts,” and convicted this part of the facts charged.

A thorough examination of the above judgment of the court of first instance by comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, and consistently stated to the effect that “Defendant lent money to the court of first instance because the deposit for selling home shopping was urgently needed,” from the investigative agency to the court of first instance.