Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In view of the fact that the Defendant maintained friendship with the victim F, C, J, N, and Korea for a long time, made a long-term monetary transaction with one another, and paid interest on high interest rate for a long time, it is difficult to deem that the above Defendant obtained money by deceiving the victims. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles of deception. 2) The sentence (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part) that the Defendant had already borrowed money from the victim B and C at the time of borrowing money from the victim B and C, and that the Defendant had continued to return the money by using the money borrowed from the above victims to repay obligations of other obligees, and the interest paid to the above victims was paid to other obligees in the form of money borrowed from other obligees, and that the Defendant had continued to return the money, and the land of Seojin-gu U.S. (hereinafter “Seoul-gu land”).

In light of the fact that senior mortgage was established and there was no real value as a collateral, it is recognized that the Defendant acquired money by deceiving the above victims in regard to each fraud described in the list of crimes (2) Nos. 1 and 2 against the victim B and the victim C among the facts charged in the instant case. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination of the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, concealed the Defendant’s location of the use of money borrowed from the Victim F and the status of his/her obligation at the time.