The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. In light of the statement of the victim of the reasons for appeal and the circumstances surrounding which the defendant prepared a fair deed, the relationship between the defendant, D and E, etc., the defendant can be recognized that he/she acquired and operated the marina as D and E and that he/she deceives the victim to defraud KRW 100 million.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor shall keep the facts charged in the instant case in his own discretion, and the prosecutor shall add the following (the reasons for the ruling to be used again) the ancillary facts charged, such as the facts charged, and apply for an amendment to a bill of amendment to which Article 347(2) of the Criminal Act shall be added in accordance with the applicable law, and this court shall grant permission, thereby changing the subject of the judgment.

In addition, as seen later, this Court found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary charges added, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (main facts charged)

A. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the primary charges for the following reasons.

The prosecutor brought an indictment of this case on the premise that the subject who received KRW 100 million from F is the defendant.

However, the Defendant asserted that he borrowed money from F is D and E and that he merely guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation only within the scope of KRW 50 million. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant was given KRW 100 million from F.

It is difficult to see it.

1) F is KRW 100,000,000,000 for operating capital of Mart.