The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, victim F and corporation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was unable to repay the borrowed money to J, K, andO only on the wind that does not mean that the business of mistake of facts is a business of mistake of facts, and the Defendant did not borrow money from the above victims with the intent of deception from the beginning, but is merely a dispute in the course of settlement, even in relation to F, P, and Solars, and does not transfer or engage in transactions with the criminal intent of deception. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

In the first instance, the prosecutor partially changed the facts charged about the fraud of the PP, and maintained the name of the crime as the primary facts charged, and applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to indictment to add the facts charged with embezzlement Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act. This court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment.

In addition, the revised facts charged and the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be sentenced. Ultimately, the entire judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts about each other's crime except for the part of Amendments to Bill of Indictment is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined as follows.

B. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts against the victim F. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at the E office located in Seogu Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 2012, owed 34-month installments of the remainder of KRW 10,000,000 among the loan 10,000,000 if the Defendant delivered the G selective vehicle operated by the victim F.