Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the prosecuted case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the above loan charges on the ground that the defendant has no ability to repay the above loan charges, even though he/she was sufficiently able to repay by operating the panty market store at the time of borrowing KRW 70 million from C, he/she was guilty of the above loan charges by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for three months) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware that the defendant was unable to repay KRW 70 million when borrowing KRW 70 million from C, at least 370 million for the credit union with D apartment units as collateral, and 60 million for V, and 15 million for relatives and 2 relatives, and did not own any property other than the above apartment units, and the defendant is merely liable to compensate for net profits when operating panty store, and the defendant is not fully able to submit objective evidence related thereto. In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the defendant was aware that he was unable to repay KRW 70 million when borrowing KRW 70 million from C, or that he acquired the above amount by deceiving it under the status of her her mother at least with the awareness of it. Therefore, the court below's judgment convicting this part of the facts charged is justified.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

On the fourth trial of the trial of the court of first instance, the prosecutor reduced “67,90,00 won at the market price” in the facts charged in the second trial, and applied for amendments to the indictment with “provisional value of KRW 21,689,000”. This court permitted this, thereby changing the subject of the trial. Meanwhile, this case is subject to the judgment.