The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of entering into a contract for requesting a loan claim, the Defendant, as a misunderstanding of facts, failed to provide specific explanation on the legal principles such as the extinction of prescription period and waiver of extinctive prescription benefits, etc., and may win if there are monetary transaction details.

In other words, the case was requested, and there was no intention to mislead the defendant with D.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, community service 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment to the same purport is justifiable, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant made a false statement on three occasions on July 25, 2017; (b) August 25, 2017; and (c) August 28, 2017.

① On July 25, 2017, around August 28, 2017, the Defendant acquired the fees by deceiving the public service offices of each Gangseo-gu Police Station, and by deceiving the attorney-at-law (D) to the public service offices of the Seoul Local Attorney-at-Law Association as if he/she could not win even if he/she could not win because the period of prescription expires from the beginning.

The phrase “(D)” or “law-at-law (D) had attempted to induce an appeal by deceiving that it was a situation in which it was impossible to win due to the expiration of the period of prescription from the beginning, and thus, could not win.”

A complaint or a petition was filed with the content of ".........."

(2) The Defendant had already expired the statute of limitations at the time of receiving counseling with respect to the claim for return of the amount lent from 1994 to 2000 to F, one of his mothers, to D at an investigative agency.