All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (the Defendant) merely borrowed money to the victim to the extent that it is necessary for the victim to borrow money of KRW 20 million, and there was no statement that the cost of construction is needed for the victim. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim due to the real estate owned by G as one’s wife at the time of the instant case. Since the Defendant did not dispose of the said real estate against G, it was only impossible to repay the money borrowed up to

B. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too heavy or uncomfortable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case showed that the Defendant: (a) expressed that the ordinary defendant served as a member of the D Council; and (b) had much knowledge of persons having influence on society; and (c) expressed the victim C who requested resolution of the separate accusation case around April 29, 2012 with the intent to obtain money from the victim by deceiving the victim C by introducing police officers known to the Defendant.

On April 30, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant’s house located in Seocheon-gu E apartment 103 Dong 801, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, 201, stating that “When the construction of the building constructed at the e-mail strengthening level is completed, 10 million won can be paid, and the construction cost is insufficient. If the construction cost is leased KRW 20 million, it will be paid up to May 23, 2012 after using it as the construction cost.”

In fact, even if the defendant received money from the victim, he was thought to repay his obligation, and until May 23, 2012, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the victim KRW 20 million.

Around May 2, 2012, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was remitted from the victim KRW 20 million.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.