The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

In the case of the first crime against the defendant, the judgment shall be made in two months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s fraud against the victim of mistake of facts, at the time of purchasing a food vehicle, the victimO traded directly with R on its own responsibility, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victimO. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statement of the victim of mistake of facts, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground of misconception of facts. 2) The court below’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part. The court below held that at the time, the defendant alleged that the defendant was identical to the grounds for appeal in this part, the relationship between the defendant and R, the defendant and the victim was rapidly rapid since he first known around December 2013. On the other hand, the victim and R were in a space between the defendant and the victim, the victim was in a space between the defendant and the defendant when preparing a loan document for the 5-car car, and the victim was transferred 13 million won borrowed by the victim through Hyundai Capital around January 29, 2014 and 8 million won borrowed by the victim through Hyundai Capital around February 5, 2014 (the above eight million won was transferred to the defendant's wife at the time of remitting the national card (the victim and the defendant together with the defendant at the time of remitting the above eight million won).

The Defendant received a claim from the victim on March 7, 2014 on the issue of food and loan, and paid approximately KRW 13 million to the victim from March 7, 2014 to the 15th day of the same month, and R received KRW 21 million from the Defendant as the price for the first patrol vehicle from the Defendant on January 1, 2014, and arbitrarily consumed it to the victim, thereby obtaining a loan for the security of 5 vehicles from KR5 vehicles, and the victim consented to it. However, the aforementioned R’s statement is unclear the source of money and the process of consumption.