The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1 and the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired 50 million won as stated in the annexed crime list (i.e., the annexed crime list No. 5) from the victim C on May 19, 2014, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, so the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the victim C, each crime of fraud and the above innocence part with a single and continuous criminal intent, and by deceiving the defendant with a single and continuous criminal intent as a single crime, and thus constitutes a single comprehensive crime. However, the court below should consider each act of borrowing as an individual crime according to the specific name of borrowing, and judged the victim C not guilty of the charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim C as a substantive concurrent crime of each crime of fraud, which affected the conclusion of judgment

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two and a half years and six months of imprisonment) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On May 19, 2014, the Defendant’s summary of this part of the facts charged is to pay the victim C interest at the E agency located in Gangnam-gu Seoul on May 19, 2014, for the interest rate of 1% per month on the loan of money.

‘Falsely speaking, it received 50 million won from the injured party and acquired it by remittance.

2) The lower court’s summary of the lower judgment, based on the following: (a) the Defendant fully repaid the Victim C with the sum of KRW 55 million principal and interest (i.e., KRW 50 million with interest of KRW 50 million) around October 2014; and (b) the victim C did not include this part of the facts charged on the ground that the principal and interest of the loan was repaid.