All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, Defendant 1 did not borrow money under his name while gambling with the victim C with the Internet with the victim, but was well aware of each other to the extent of living together with the victim E who had a relationship with the victim E, and either delivered money or received money under the name of the defendant with the expectation that the defendant would be able to pay a lot of money through the work of the defendant, or become a joint guarantor of the money borrowed under the name of the defendant.

In addition, the defendant was aware of the victim G, J and for a long time, and the above victims were well aware that the defendant was gambling on the Internet.

Therefore, although the defendant had no ability to repay at the time, the above victims could have sufficiently predicted the risk of delay in repayment, so there was no intention to commit fraud.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below.

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the victims have the ability to provide money to the defendant for gambling or (ii) to lend money to the defendant of several hundred million won, even though they were clearly aware that they would be used for gambling, or there is a trust relationship with the defendant to that extent.

It is difficult to easily understand that the victims would be able to use money for gambling even if they are able to know that they would be able to use money for short-term investment benefits or to deliver money to the defendant due to relationship with relatives. ③ Some victims were in a relationship with the defendant, such as the defendant's assertion.

Even if such circumstance alone, it can be said that gambling is a private house.