All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, circumstances such as the Defendant’s statement on the part of the charge concerning the fraud amounting to KRW 80 million can be acknowledged, and accordingly, the Defendant’s defrauded may also be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, in the judgment of the first instance court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of one deliberation (one year and two months of imprisonment) on an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of the maximum amount of KRW 130,000,000,000 was committed by the Defendant for the creation of a new mortgage to the victim within three months by completing the new construction of the loan of this case and promising the victim to pay all of the obligations to the victim, including the amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 for the previous investment and the amount of the secured obligation of the said secured obligation, is inconsistent with the first instance court’s statement.

In addition, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, because it was impossible for the Defendant to complete the new construction of the loan of this case, but it was impossible to repay the secured debt due to unexpected real estate economic depression, and the criminal intent of defraudation cannot be recognized.

B) The actor stated in this part of the facts charged is K with the Defendant’s partner, and the Defendant did not participate therein.

However, even if it is not so, the victim has the intent to commit the crime of defraudation by the defendant, even though it is merely an investment in the new construction of the loan of this case by allowing the defendant to set up a new collateral on his own real property and allowing the defendant to borrow KRW 12 million.

§ 23.