The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant was an investment in the casino business run by the Defendant-friendly F, F, and borrowed KRW 200 million from the injured party and invested in the said casino business. The Defendant did not have any intent to deceive the injured party. Although the Defendant had sufficient intent or ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing, the lower court recognized the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, and the prosecutor conducted conduct 2 to 11 of the facts charged at the trial at the trial at the trial “pro-friendly F is the vice president of V

When investing in casino business places, 40% of the shares owned by the casino business places will be transferred.

In other words, the lending of money is changed. The principal shall be paid in KRW 17 million every six months with interest of KRW 3 million and the proceeds from investment, and the written application for amendments to a bill of amendment submitted by a prosecutor on March 2, 2017 shall be stated as " March 2, 2009." However, according to each erroneous term of office " March 2, 201," such as the indictment prior to the change or the written application for amendments submitted by the victim, it can be known that there is a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, even if it is so stated."

Therefore, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, “ March 2, 2009” should be changed ex officio to “ March 2, 2011.” without any additional amendment procedure.

(2) The repayment will be made.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the Defendant did not have the right to engage in the said casino business, as it did not invest KRW 50 million in the said casino business, and the Defendant did not have the right to engage in the said casino business, but did not have the right to engage in the said casino business.