All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine), the Defendant (hereinafter “G”) operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “the Defendant”) had net profit of approximately KRW 90 million each month at the time of borrowing money from the damaged party; G did not have any limit on the loans from financial institutions at the time of the lending; G was reduced when payment was made after the delinquent payment of taxes; and G was excessive to the delinquent payment of taxes due to the reduction of taxes, there was no intention to defraud the Defendant.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a prison term of six months, a stay of execution of two years, and a community service order of 80 hours) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal doctrine, it is deemed that the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the Defendant at the time of borrowing money from the damaged party. As such, there was an intention to defraud the Defendant.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

A. At the time of the prosecutorial investigation on September 29, 2014, the Defendant was difficult to reduce the overall distance between not only our factory from around 2007 to 2008, but also other subordinate companies.

From 2006 to 2007, loans were granted for policy funds.

Many of the time was difficult.

There was a debt of KRW 10 to KRW 2 billion from 5-6, which was 5 to 6, the victim's lending of money.

In around 2007-2008, the first-class situation became safe, and the first-class cost, such as the first-class cost of KRW 40 million per month for the employees of 50-60 persons, was 3 to 400 million, and the monthly sales of KRW 50 million borrowed money from the neighbors to waiting for basic expenses.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

B. In fact, G does not constitute an average of KRW 100 million when the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, as the difference between the monthly sales and the purchase was not the difference.