All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance), the defendant merely received KRW 20 million from the victim K as a casino business investment loan, and the defendant's punishment and business is running Lestop (hereinafter " Lestop") as stated in the judgment below, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, and there is no fact to the purport that it is necessary to pay money in the name of the fund to be used for the Lestop management of this case.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment) that the judgment of the court below rendered by the court below (as to the judgment below, one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

This Court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2. In this regard, the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below No. 2 are all reversed, since the crime of the first instance judgment against the defendant and the crime of the second instance judgment are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of the second instance judgment should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake about the facts of the first instance judgment is still subject to deliberation. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake about the facts of the first instance judgment is to be determined in hereinafter.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of the facts against the judgment of the court below of first instance, the victim K’s statement that corresponds to the fraud against the victim K among the facts charged in the instant case is credibility.

No. 1. The statements of the victim K with credibility are different.