We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

but for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the judgment of the court of first instance on mistake of facts, the defendant did not have deceiving the victim D or J, and did not have the intention to defraud the defendant.

In relation to the second instance judgment, only borrowed money from the victim AW, and there is no fact of deceiving the above victim to acquire the money.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment for 8 months, 2 years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service, 1 year of imprisonment and 3 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio shall be examined ex officio.

The defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court tried two appeals jointly, and the judgment of the court below against the defendant should be sentenced to one punishment in accordance with Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act in relation to each crime of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's argument of mistake of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Determination 1 as to the fraud against the victim D) The Defendant also asserted that this part of the judgment of the court below is erroneous, and the court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion by taking account of the following circumstances. (1) In full view of the fact that (a) a custody certificate (the Defendant alleged that the Defendant was forged, but according to the result of the stamp image appraisal, it is recognized that the subsequent stamp image after the Defendant’s name was affixed with the seal of the Defendant, and thus the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established, the Defendant, even though there was no authority or ability to give a subcontract to Q Q field civil engineering work D, was obtained by deceiving KRW 20 million

(2) Cooperation with the evidence referred to in subparagraph 13 submitted by the defendant.