The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crime of Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) The Defendant borrowed money necessary for D to seek a room, and lent KRW 1 million to the account under D’s name on December 19, 2010. The Defendant only lent D on December 20, 2010, but did not receive a penphone. The Defendant did not purchase the penphone. 2) The Defendant lent KRW 700,000 to the account under the E’s name managed by D on February 9, 201, and sent the phone sales amount.

D The Defendant did not pay the money in the restaurant near the restaurant operated by the Defendant and provided the Defendant with 0.35g of philophones free of charge.

The Defendant did not purchase philophones from D on February 9, 2011.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the charge of unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of one year and six months for the charge of the first and fifth crimes at the market, and the imprisonment of four months for the crime of the second, third and fourth crimes in its holding, and the additional collection of 2.1 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination - The Prosecutor applied for permission of changes in indictment with the content that changes the facts charged in the following facts charged at the trial of the court below prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for the second, third, and fourth crimes in the judgment of the court below, and this court permitted it and changed the subject of the judgment. The court below sentenced the Defendant to a single punishment on the grounds that the crimes Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the judgment of the court below, including this part of the facts charged, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

3. According to the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, D had attended the court as a witness and sold phiphones to the defendant.