The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Fact-misunderstanding 1) The sum of KRW 10 million in the sum of KRW 10,000,000 per month and 2-4 times a list of offenses related to fraud against the victim C is not a loan, but a vehicle sale price.

In addition, the remaining loans also paid KRW 9,799,00 (including KRW 50,00,000 paid through G on September 14, 2014) for KRW 1,50,000,000 for KRW 5,8866,00 per month of the daily list of crimes in the attached Table 1,79,000, and KRW 4,150,000 for KRW 23 and 24,000 per year of the crime in the attached Table 1,00,000,000 for KRW 1,5,222,00 per month, and there is no intention to commit fraud by the Defendant.

2) Money relationship between the Defendant and G related to the fraud against the victim G began from June 10, 2014, and repaid KRW 56.1 million as the principal and interest on the loan amounting to KRW 67.6 million.

When applying the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, the amount of damage to G shall be calculated differently, and in consideration of this point, there is no intention to commit fraud against the accused.

3) In light of the fact that the Defendant, with respect to fraud against the victim I, repaid the amount of KRW 14 million with the principal and interest of KRW 23 million as the principal and interest of the loan, and the continuous repayment has been committed, there is no intention to obtain fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court that committed frauds 10 million won in attached Table 1 to 22 times a month of the daily list of crimes committed against the victim C among the frauds in attached Table 1 to 22, the Defendant appears to have lawfully received the money by means of vehicle sale rather than obtaining the money by means of loan, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the Defendant had taken the money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

(1) The defendant shall be the court below.