All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) had the intent and ability to pay installments to the victim E corporation at the time of the application for the instant loan, and had no intention to deception.

B. The prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (exemption from punishment) is too unfilled and unfair.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have any particular number of financial resources at the time of the instant loan, and the Defendant purchased the vehicle with the loan applicant in the name of the applicant for the loan in need of supply, and paid only a part of installments by the method of return, and repeated the act of offering the released vehicle as security and lending money to a third party. At the time of the instant loan, it was conducted in the above manner using the H using the name of H, which was found to have been in need of supply at the time of the instant loan. Since there was no long time without notifying the victim of the low-priced car purchased from the above loan, the Defendant can be recognized as having offered it as security and borrowed money to a third party.

According to the above facts, the defendant provided a third party with a vehicle purchased with a loan from the time of the loan of this case as a security, and borrowed money to the victim company, and did not have the intention or ability to pay the full installment, and was judged to have had the intention of deception.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. In light of the method of each of the instant crimes and the amount of damage, etc., the following facts: (a) the Defendant was punished several times for the same type of crime; and (b) the Defendant again committed the instant crime even if he/she had been punished several times for repeated crimes; and (c) the considerable part of the amount of damage has not yet been recovered until the damage was.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is set forth in the judgment below and Article 37 of the Criminal Code.