The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles and mistake of facts, had established an internal relationship with the victim from November 2008 to December 201, 2014, received money of KRW 170 million in total from the victim for monthly living expenses. The fact that the Defendant received KRW 170 million in total on three occasions.

However, among the above money on March 11, 2013, KRW 120 million and KRW 20 million on July 10, 2014, the defendant sought a collection from the damaged person in an internal relationship, not from the damaged person, or received a match under the pretext of living expenses, etc., and on October 20, 2014, the amount of KRW 30 million on October 20, 2014, the defendant made a false statement on the purpose of the loan, but it is in a relationship between the deception and the victim's disposal.

It is difficult to see that there is intention of fraud, and there is fraud.

It is also difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted all the charges of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. On February 2013, 2013, the summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant borrowed KRW 120 million to the victim C, because he/she did not have any money to be used as an apartment rental deposit, from the mutual influent restaurant located in Busan metropolitan metropolitan traffic Daegu around February 2013, the Defendant stated that the Defendant would receive the deposit upon the expiration of the lease term.

However, the defendant was thought to use the above money as a deposit for KRW 80 million and the remaining bond play. Since the security deposit to be refunded after the expiration of the lease term was thought to be used for the repayment of the existing debt, there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed the money from the injured party.

Nevertheless, the defendant is around March 11, 2013 from the victim.